DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

depreciation should not be allowed on the actual cost of such asset; Interest under section 234D of the Act 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer based on directions' of DRP erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs 389,067; The above grounds

SIKA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and in appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

depreciation should not be allowed on the actual cost of such asset; Interest under section 234D of the Act 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer based on directions' of DRP erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act of Rs 389,067; The above grounds

A T AND S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NANJANGUD,MYSORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

depreciation as per the notice u/s 263 and as assessed by the ld. AO from A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14, which were to the tune of ₹65,36,55,033/- and ₹85,55,67,855/- respectively. The ld. AR referred to page no.106, which is a copy of the order passed u/s 254/ 143(3) read with section

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

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 30 ITA No. 2149/Kol/2019

M/S VODAFONE EAST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

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

254). Accordingly on the WDV of ₹26,07,502/- assessee would have claimed depreciation @ 60% i.e.₹15,64,501/- only. Whereas assessee is entitled for depreciation @ 25% of ₹26,07,502/- which comes out to ₹6,51,876/- only. Accordingly, the AO further observed that assessee has claimed excessive depreciation

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 14 of the Act. Therefore, such income is not eligible to be set off with brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.231 & 365/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 17. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 14 of the Act. Therefore, such income is not eligible to be set off with brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.231 & 365/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 17. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), , KOLKATA vs. TCG URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PVT LTD.,, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/

depreciation. Where assessee was incorporated for a bundle of activities, viz., designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, source of after sales engineering services and research and development of commercial vehicles and related products and components for domestic Indian and Overseas Market and, it commenced/performed activities relating to designing of commercial vehicles and related products, R&D, buying and selling of parts

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 under section 32. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 is accordingly allowed. 31. As regards Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D is similar to the one involved

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 32 (1)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961] is retrospective.” the I.T. Act, 1961] is retrospective.” 5.1. The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this The ld. D/R could not bring to our notice any contrary decision/judgment in this

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LIMITED, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), V/S. M/S Integrated Coal P-7, Chowringhee Mining Ltd., 6, Church Square, Kolkata-69 Lane, 1Ste Floor, Kolakta-700001 [Pan No.Aaaci 5584 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Diparun Mukherjee, Aca & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Alolk Goenka, Aca 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

3,58,767/-. [ground of appeal No.4] 8.1 The only issue – whether the activity of mining could be construed as production of coal, i.e. whether it is ‘production of any article or thing’; so as to qualify for additional depreciation u/s. 323(1)(iia). 8.2 The Hon'ble ITAT on this issue, in its order for AY 2008-09 [supra

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

3) of the Act dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 26.12.2017 had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue have filed the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Ground