M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 32(1)(ii) shall not be interpreted to mean that it impliedly restrict the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. We are of the view that the assessee now is entitled for 50% additional depreciation, because in the year in which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50% of additional

ITO, WARD - 12(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. 7. For that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the payment of Rs.90.36 million made to WBIDC as unsubstantiated. 8. For that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 14A and rule 8D were applicable in respect of the dividend of Rs.18

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. 7. For that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the payment of Rs.90.36 million made to WBIDC as unsubstantiated. 8. For that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 14A and rule 8D were applicable in respect of the dividend of Rs.18

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

section 14A cannot be imported into clause (f) of the Explanation to sec. 115JA of the Act. In this view of the matter, we therefore, delete the disallowance of expenses confirmed by the CIT(A) while computing book profit under sec. 115JB of the Act. In other words, no addition to the book profit shall be made on account

M/S MATERIALS CHEMICALS AND PERFORMANCE INTERMEDIARIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

234C & 234D of the Act of Rs. 399,100, Rs. 1,213,022 & Rs. 252,420 respectively). 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid original assessment order, the assessee had filed an appeal which is presently pending before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22. 5. In the meantime, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated

DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

depreciation, for which financial year or part of such financial year falling within or relevant previous year. 16. Only those companies, which are engaged in the generation or supply of electricity, will come within the ambit of section 616 of the Companies Act. For that it is necessary that assessee must be a company. If assessee is not a company

M/S. BAID TRADE FINA PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2453/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S. Baid Trade Fina Pvt. Ltd.,……...………Appellant S.S. Chambers, 5, C.R. Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aabcb1875A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 30Th, 2025 O R D E R

234C of the Act and it may be held accordingly. 3. The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the rate of tax charged @ 30% instead of 25%, even when the assessee has exercised the option under section 115BAA(5) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S TATA METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation as is adopted while preparing its accounts that are laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with provisions of Sec.210 of the Companies Act. Explanation below Sec.115JB of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account

TATA METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation as is adopted while preparing its accounts that are laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with provisions of Sec.210 of the Companies Act. Explanation below Sec.115JB of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account

CENTURY ENKA LIMITED.,PUNE vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 2. Inter-connected grounds raised by assessee in ground No. 1 to 4 in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer by sustaining the disallowance of additional depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 80 IE of the Act. 13.1. Consistent with the view taken by us for the Assessment Year 2010-11, while adjudicating the very same issue, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. 14. Ground No. 5 of the Revenue and Ground No. 8 of the Cross-objection

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 80 IE of the Act. 13.1. Consistent with the view taken by us for the Assessment Year 2010-11, while adjudicating the very same issue, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. 14. Ground No. 5 of the Revenue and Ground No. 8 of the Cross-objection

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHNU TEA & INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble Am & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble Jm] I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 C.O. No. 64/Kol/2016 A/O. I.T.A. No. 1749/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 80 IE of the Act. 13.1. Consistent with the view taken by us for the Assessment Year 2010-11, while adjudicating the very same issue, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. 14. Ground No. 5 of the Revenue and Ground No. 8 of the Cross-objection

AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

depreciation is mandatory as per the provisions of section 32 of the Art. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to consider total income at Rs. 10,33,47,450 in the Computation Sheet issued along with the impugned assessment order instead of considering the total

M/S. EARNEST TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

234C while computing the tax payable by the Appellant. 6.4 The Appellant submits that based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, there was no basis for the Ld. AO to propose to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice

LANDIS + GYR LIMITED,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

depreciation on goodwill in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the apex court’s decision in 348 ITR 302 supra, we allow the claim of the assessee and the additional ground raised

M/S LANDIS+GYR LIMITED,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

depreciation on goodwill in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the apex court’s decision in 348 ITR 302 supra, we allow the claim of the assessee and the additional ground raised

YOGESH TRANSPORT PVT LTD,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

234C is valid as it is mandatory for default in\nadvance tax payment. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section\n271(1)(c) is justified due to the appellant's inability to substantiate the claimed\nexpenses. The appeal is dismissed in full.”\n06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the assessee