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

SHRI JOYDEEP ROY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

depreciation claimed on Godown 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

250 of the Act reads as under:- “(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision”. AY 2012-13 3. Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, the Learned Authorised Representative ( in short, the ‘Ld. AR’) of the assessee assailing

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

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. As both the appeals involve a common issue, the same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16. As both the appeals involve a common issue, the same were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

QUADRO INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). 2. The first issue relating to the disallowance of Rs.3,85,596/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act, on interest income received is raised by the assessee in Ground

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

6) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act. 23. Be that as it may be, it is well known that higher or lower profit of a business in comparison to other units can be as a result of the cumulative effect of several factors. For instance, from the facts of the present case, it is noted that apart from

SMT. MONIKA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 38(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Vs Ito, Smt. Monika Agarwal, 121, Park Street, Ward-38(4), Aaykar 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700017. Bhawan Poorva, 110, Pan-Aaapm8685P Shantipally, Poorva, Kolkata-700107. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Gaurav Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 24.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2018 Order

depreciation Rs.32,965/- [Assessment Year: 2012-13] 3. Against the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time

M/S. SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Shristi Infrastructure Dcit, Development Corporation Circle 11(1) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No.X-12 & 3, Block P-7, Chowringhee Vs. Ep, Sector V Salt Lake City, Square, Kolkata700069 Kolkata-700 091 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp5074F Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surna, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024

section 43(6) of the Act which provides that depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of the asset less the depreciation actually allowed. Accordingly, during the A.Y. 2012-13, the Appellant had claimed depreciation on the Written down value of goodwill amounting to Rs. 750,00,000/ -. 1.9 Reference in this regard is invited to the revised return

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.881/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. Vs. M/S. Shristi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.X-1,2 & 3, Block-Ep, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp5074F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata Dated 26.12.2018 Passed In Case No.738/Cit(A)-4/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 43(6) of the Act which provides that depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of the asset less the depreciation actually allowed. Accordingly, during the A.Y. 2012-13, the Appellant had claimed depreciation on the Written down value of goodwill amounting to Rs. 750,00,000/ -. 1.9 Reference in this regard is invited to the revised return

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 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 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

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

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:

6. Repairs and Maintenance Expenditure of Rs. 1,43,46,644/- claimed as Revenue, AO Treated as Capital in nature. 6.1 The ld. DR for the Revenue had submitted that the entries in the annexure 9 which was submitted by Assessee before Assessing Officer, do not bear the character of revenue expenditure or not in nature of repairs and maintenance

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-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:

6. Repairs and Maintenance Expenditure of Rs. 1,43,46,644/- claimed as Revenue, AO Treated as Capital in nature. 6.1 The ld. DR for the Revenue had submitted that the entries in the annexure 9 which was submitted by Assessee before Assessing Officer, do not bear the character of revenue expenditure or not in nature of repairs and maintenance