M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year. Section 215(5) defines what is 'assessed

SECOND VIVEKANANDA BRIDGE TOLLYWAYCO.PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Second Vivekananda V/S. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Bridge Tollway Co. Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., Block Gp, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Salt Lake Electronics Kolkata-69 Complex, Kolkata-91 [Pan No.Aahcs 8573 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Rudra, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 21-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Calls Into Question The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 04.11.2016 Passed In Case No.1221/Cit(A)-1/C-2(2)/2015-16 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Its Depreciation Claimed Of ₹41,99,22,054 In Respect Of Licence To Collect The Toll Revenue Of The Second Vivekananda Bridge (Treated As The Relevant Intangible Asset) & Disallowing Leave Encashment Provision Of ₹1,84,562/- U/S 43B(F) In Assessment Order Dated 11.05.2015, Involving Proceeding U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short As ‘The Act’. 2. We Come To Former Issue Of Depreciation Disallowance In Respect Of Assessee’S Licence To Collect Toll Charges On The Second Vivekananda Bridge.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 26 M/s. Progressive Constructions Ltd. “ It is therefore sufficiently clear that the learned Special Bench has settled the issue treating a similar licence to collect tollway to be an intangible asset under the relevant statutory provision. We therefore adopt

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, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BABA LOKENATH FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

207/-. If the depreciation amount is ignored, the cash profit actually exceedsRs.69,00,000/-, which is more than the estimated profit of Rs.50,00,000/- as reported on the date of search. 3.2 The assessing officer, on analysis of the computation of the income of the assessee, found that assessee had shown the short reportingof income. The documents found

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, C IRCLE- 6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2007-08

depreciation as per books of account in computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act.” 3. First issue raised in this appeal of assessee is as regards that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer by sustaining the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.s. Rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962. 3.1 Facts in brief

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 on fixed assets as well as on temporary structure and other facilities used during the period of construction (see paragraph 9.4 and 9.5 of this Note). (j) Expenses on test runs (see paragraph 11 of this Note). (k) Expenses on land grading and leveling (see paragraph 96 of this Note). Taking a consistent view by the decision

DCIT CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

207/- & Rs. 118,63,673/- respectively during AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 in pursuance of the expansion programme formulated by the technical teams for debottlenecking of the production processes at these 4 gardens. From the information placed before me. It appeared that as a consequence the production of tea at Moran, Paneery, Monabarie & Mijicajan went

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

207/- & Rs. 118,63,673/- respectively during AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 in pursuance of the expansion programme formulated by the technical teams for debottlenecking of the production processes at these 4 gardens. From the information placed before me. It appeared that as a consequence the production of tea at Moran, Paneery, Monabarie & Mijicajan went

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

207/- & Rs. 118,63,673/- respectively during AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 in pursuance of the expansion programme formulated by the technical teams for debottlenecking of the production processes at these 4 gardens. From the information placed before me. It appeared that as a consequence the production of tea at Moran, Paneery, Monabarie & Mijicajan went

GLOSTER LIMITEDN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED ),KOLKATA vs. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

Depreciation schedule of the TAR. Please explain the difference. (b) In ref. to 13(e) of the TAR, capital subsidy receivable Rs.1.5 crore was credited to Capital reserve a/c Interest subsidy of Rs.15003609/- was credited in the P&L a/c. Another subsidy of Rs.720000/- was received from Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India. Again as per point no.2 of Notes

DCIT, CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1058 & 1059/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 916/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos.59 & 60/Kol/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1058 & 1059/Kol/2011) Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] ( Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Section’ and ‘Erection & Fabrication’ were an integral part of the installed plant & machinery and they have been put to use. Therefore, the A.O’s action in disallowing depreciation on these assets are not justified as per law. The A.O is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,13,71,906/-.” 7.1. With regard to disallowance of depreciation on ‘Electrical