DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation of Rs.19,69,869/- on the ground that amendment made in Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in section 11(5) of the Act is retrospective in operation/clarificatory and, therefore, not allowable. 3. Facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “The assessee is a charitable trust having

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.1218/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir – 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 6, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb5984E (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue/Department By : Shri R. P. Nag, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 502/Cit(A)-4/Circle-11/Kol/14- 15, Dated 06.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.90,56,200/- U/S 32(1) (Iia) Of The I.T.Act,1961, Relating To Visicooler Machine.”

200/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had deleted the addition made by AO. During the course of the appellate proceeding, the assessee explained to CIT(A) that the law does not specifically lay down the condition that the assets had to be installed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

depreciation claim stands reversed byhon'ble Madras high court in TCA No.55/2017 dated 14.03.2017. Their lordships have made it clear that such a deduction claim is allowable even if in case than fixed assets had been put to use in earlier assessment years. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s identical detailed reasoning extracted hereinabove in all these three assessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 32 (1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961] is retrospective.” the I.T. Act, 1961] is retrospective.” 5.1. The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this

RAI BHAGWAN DAS BAGLA BAHADURS MARWARI HINDU HOSPITAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(3) NOW, I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rai Bhagwan Das Bagla Ito, Ward-49(3), Bahadurs Marwari Hindu 3, Govt. Place (West), Hospital Kolkata-700001, Vs. 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin West Bengal Burn House, Kolkata-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aactr1297C Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024

200 per sq. ft.). The letter further stated that as per the verification made by the Investigation Wing, the local valuation of the land as on 01.04.1981 was 1,84,320/- per Cottah and the cost of the construction of hundred years old building cannot be taken as the cost of construction of the property as on 01.04.1981/-. Therefore

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation under section 32. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 is accordingly allowed. 31. As regards Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D is similar to the one involved

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

depreciation at Rs.57,84,200/- made by the assessee. Thus, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up ground no. 5 raised by assessee for AY 2014-15 through which disallowance of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI at Rs.9,26,938/- is challenged. Two, uncontroverted facts

GINZA INDUSTRIES LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 5(1) , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

depreciation at Rs.57,84,200/- made by the assessee. Thus, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up ground no. 5 raised by assessee for AY 2014-15 through which disallowance of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI at Rs.9,26,938/- is challenged. Two, uncontroverted facts

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

200 or more which clearly shows that the basic motive for giving the subsidy was promotion of industry for development of the backward region where there is scarcity of employment opportunity. (d) The Assessee submitted that the object for which the subsidy was given is decisive as to whether its capital or revenue in nature. If the subsidy is given

BOC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

depreciation in computing the taxable income for the year under appeal. Based on this submission, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition/disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the ld.AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee is ITA Nos. 806 & 872/Kol/2011-B-AM 3 M/s.Linde India Limited also in appeal before

M/S JALAN CEMENT WORKS LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - I, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Jalan Cement Works V/S. Cit, Kolkata-1 Ltd 2Nd Floor, Room No Aayakar Bhawan, 202, 81, Netji Subhas Road, P-7, Chowringhee Kolkata-700 001 Square, Kolkata- [Pan No.: Aaacj6788R] 700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation whichever is less is to be reduced. 11. The Ld CIT has raised this issue upon the assessee in his show cause letter and the appellant has duly replied to it. 12. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has, while arguing his appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, on 10.8.2016 clearly stated that assessee is not pressing

ORGANON (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

200/-. 4. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(i) was disputed by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the main contention raised on behalf of the assessee- company in support of its case on this issue was that

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

depreciation shall apply accordingly. 9.2. Further we observe that Section 45(7) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, provides that, the scheme shall thereafter be placed before the Central Government for its sanction and the Central Government may sanction the scheme without any modifications or with such modifications as it may consider necessary, and the scheme as sanctioned

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

depreciation shall apply accordingly. 9.2. Further we observe that Section 45(7) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, provides that, the scheme shall thereafter be placed before the Central Government for its sanction and the Central Government may sanction the scheme without any modifications or with such modifications as it may consider necessary, and the scheme as sanctioned