D.C.I.T CIR - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2126&2625/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009 & 2009-2010) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-10, 7, Chakraberia Road (S), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700025 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace 5767 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By : Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am:

section 250(4) of the Act, the ld CIT (A) did not conduct further inquiry to establish whether expenditure is in the nature of Revenue or Capital. It is settled position of law that a lot of factors would determine whether the expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. It is seen in the said Annexure that the assessee

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

JCIT (OSD), CIR- 11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 24 (twenty four) days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation stating the reasons for the said delay. After perusing the same

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

250(4) of the Act. The result of such enquiry conducted by him could have either gone to further cement or enhance the case made out by the AO or help out the assessee against the findings of the AO. In the instant case, the results of the enquiries thus conducted supported the case of the assessee and not that

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 250(4). This approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld.” (Emphasis ours) 9.6.1. In the case on hand, the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct a proper enquiry. The ld. CIT(A) has also failed in his duty on this issue. Thus, applying the proposition

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 250(4). This approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld.” (Emphasis ours) 9.6.1. In the case on hand, the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct a proper enquiry. The ld. CIT(A) has also failed in his duty on this issue. Thus, applying the proposition

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 250(4). This approach not having been adopted, the impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld.” (Emphasis ours) 9.6.1. In the case on hand, the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct a proper enquiry. The ld. CIT(A) has also failed in his duty on this issue. Thus, applying the proposition

SHREE RAGHUNATH STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation carried forward from the earlier years, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Nil. The book profit of the assessee-company for A.Y. 2000-01 under section 115JA was computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.32,82,657/- and demand was raised on account of tax payable in respect of the total income

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated 07.02.2019 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and terminalling/bottling of liquefied petroleum gas. The sole issue that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the process of blending of butane

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated 07.02.2019 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. The assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and terminalling/bottling of liquefied petroleum gas. The sole issue that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the process of blending of butane

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

250 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') for AYs 2018-19 & 2020-\n21 dated 05.05.2025 and 23.04.2025, respectively. Since the issues\nrelate to the common assessee, therefore, they are being decided vide\nthis common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.\n2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). First, we take up revenue’s appeal ITA No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd ITA No.1964/Kol/2019 : 2. The revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that assessee’s appeals are time barred by 741 days. Condonation application has been

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that assessee’s appeals are time barred by 741 days. Condonation application has been

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that assessee’s appeals are time barred by 741 days. Condonation application has been

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 02.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that assessee’s appeals are time barred by 741 days. Condonation application has been

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 30.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 30.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 30.07.2018 which are arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: ITA No. 2142/KOL/2018 Assessment Year