DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. G.S. ATWAL & COMPANY (ENGINEERS) PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

PHILIPS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

depreciation was claimed by the Company in conformity with the conditions laid out in section 32 of the IT Act read with Rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT erred in linking the amount debited to Profit & Loss Account towards "Excise

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

3. 1.8 The Appellant had claimed the depreciation @ 25% on the sum o/ Rs. 100,000,000/- during the A.Y. 2011-12 in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(i, of the Act read with section 43(6) of the Act which provides that depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of the asset less the depreciation actually

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.

3. 1.8 The Appellant had claimed the depreciation @ 25% on the sum o/ Rs. 100,000,000/- during the A.Y. 2011-12 in accordance with the provisions of section 32(1)(i, of the Act read with section 43(6) of the Act which provides that depreciation is allowed on the actual cost of the asset less the depreciation actually

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

section 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled even the requirements for a claim of a higher rate of depreciation and was entitled thereto.” Though this decision has been rendered on the allowability of depreciation on leased assets from the angle of the lessor, the principle laid down could be made very much applicable to the facts

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A which is brought in the statute book with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962. The disallowance had to be made only on an estimated basis with regard to the expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning tax free income. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s R.R.Sen & Brothers

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A which is brought in the statute book with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962. The disallowance had to be made only on an estimated basis with regard to the expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning tax free income. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s R.R.Sen & Brothers

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred

section 143(3) vide an order dated 30.03.2015, the total income of the assessee company was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 4,80,68,13,340/- after making the following additions: 1. Disallowance of depreciation & Addl. Depreciation 8,22,02,645/- 2. Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation expenses 5,48,910/- 3. Disallowance of Gift expenses

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4. ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION THEREON Ground no. 4.1 of Assessee’s Appeal The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is inter alia engaged in the business of time charter of aircraft. It holds a valid license to operate non-scheduled air charter services. The assessee

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

3 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4. ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION THEREON Ground no. 4.1 of Assessee’s Appeal The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is inter alia engaged in the business of time charter of aircraft. It holds a valid license to operate non-scheduled air charter services. The assessee

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

depreciation @ 15% on various\noffice equipment (installed or fitted at head office, branch offices and\nvarious leased or rented office (sales) premises across the country),\nwhich is applicable for plant and machinery, he made specific\ndisallowance of 5% of excess depreciation claimed by treating these as\nfurniture and fixture instead of plant and machinery on which\ndepreciation @ 10% is applicable

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

3 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in restricting the\naddition of ₹51,48,540/- being expenses incurred on exempt income,\nwhile computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and directing the Ld.\nAO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) contained in the\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

3 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in restricting the\naddition of ₹51,48,540/- being expenses incurred on exempt income,\nwhile computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and directing the Ld.\nAO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) contained in the\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

3 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in restricting the\naddition of ₹51,48,540/- being expenses incurred on exempt income,\nwhile computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act and directing the Ld.\nAO to restrict the addition in terms of clause (f) contained in the\nExplanation 1 to section 115JB

PEARL PARK BEACH RESORTS,PORT BLAIR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(4),, PORT BLAIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

253(5), the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In this connection, it is submitted that one of the partners of the appellant firm

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression "sufficient cause" employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression "sufficient cause" employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCERS,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression "sufficient cause" employed in this Section has also been used identically in sub-Section 3 of Section

D.C.I.T, CIR-2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

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

253 (SC) , the interest subsidy received by the assessee should also be treated as revenue receipt. 2.2. On first appeal, the ld CITA held that the interest subsidy should not be taxed as revenue receipt but the same needs to be reduced from the cost of the asset and assessee is entitled to claim reduced depreciation accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee