BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

106 results for “depreciation”+ Section 271clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,155Mumbai1,110Bangalore191Ahmedabad191Chennai161Kolkata106Jaipur78Raipur52Hyderabad45Pune44Indore42Lucknow25Chandigarh25Amritsar16Surat13Visakhapatnam12SC11Guwahati8Jodhpur8Rajkot8Karnataka7Telangana6Patna5Ranchi5Varanasi4Allahabad4Nagpur3Cuttack3Dehradun3Jabalpur3Cochin3S. B. SINHA MARKANDEY KATJU1Panaji1Calcutta1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1D.K. JAIN H.L. DATTU JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)89Section 271(1)(c)55Addition to Income48Section 27447Depreciation46Section 115J42Section 14735Section 26331Disallowance31Deduction

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation which was sought to be rectified and a bona fide explanation in this regard., whereby, the said amount was offered for taxation. Going by the various court decisions as well as Explanation 1 to section 271

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

29
Section 14A28
Penalty27

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1234/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)

section 153A proceedings also. The assessee also filed another submission that it had shown bogus purchase of machinery of Rs. 1,08,16,000/- in Financial Year 2005-06 and claimed bogus depreciation of Rs. 8,11,200/- and claimed bogus machinery hire charges payable of Rs. 11,46,700/- in Financial Year 2005-06 from M/s D.K.Enterprises. M/s D.K.Enterprises

SUPER REGRACTORIES,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O, WARD-1(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2229/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

depreciation of Rs.2,18,917/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were duly signed and served upon the assessee. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 18.12.2008, the total loss of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1002/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 872/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

Section 2Section 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia): “1. Clause (29BA) inserted in section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, w.e.f. 01.04.2009, defines the expression ‘manufacture as under: ‘manufacture’, with its grammatical variations, means a change in a non- living physical object or article or thing, (a) Resulting in transformation of the object

MANOJ KUMAR CHOWDHURY ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 61(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2420/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Ito, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271

SHREE BALAJI PLYWOOD,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shree Balaji Plywood Vs. Ito, Ward-48(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai on behalf of Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271

SHYAM SUNDAR HAZRA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 33(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2510/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shyam Sundar Hazra Vs. Ito, Ward-33(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271

NATHMAL SARAF CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1)(EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271

BINAGURI TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Puja Somani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on asset/equipment which did not exist or which was never supplied, assessee had not only concealed particulars of its income, but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty under section 271

D.C.I.T.CIR - VIII,KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RAM CHANDRA AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

depreciation. Making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty under section 271

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA vs. M/S ASSOCIATED ALCOHOLS & BREWERIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-12, P-7, V/S. M/S Associated Alcohols Chowringhee Square & Breweries Ltd. 106A, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Shyam Bazar, Station, Floor, Kolkata-69 Ground Floor, Kolkata-05 [Pan No.Aaeca 2674 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80J

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms.’ 24. The income of the assessee was thus assessed under Section 115JB and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have to see and examine the application of Explanation 4. 25. Judgment in the case of Gold Coins (supra), obviously

D.C.I.T CC - V,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SALSAR STOCK BROKING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 1082/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 73

depreciation of Rs. 22,28,085/-, the assessee furnished a loss return of Rs. 4,71,01,220/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A / 143(3) of the Act on 11.5.2011 by treating the share trading loss as speculation loss in terms of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act and after making minor disallowances and determining total income

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

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

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

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 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 53,32,210/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,33,22,099/- ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in appellant's own case in DCIT -vs- EIH Limited (2015) I.T.A. No. 426/Ko1/2006 for AY 2002-03· ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT

MD. SHAMSAD ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2124/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2124/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Md. Shamsad Alam, Vs. The Ito, Ward-53(1), (Proprietor Of : M/S 2, Gariahat Road (S) M.S.Drum Suppliers), Kolkata-700068 25/6/F, Am Ghosh Road, Budge Budge, 24 Parganas (S), Kolkata-700137 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpa 5230 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.49/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward53(1)/Kol/12-13, Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27/12/2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,93,600/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The 2 Md. Shamsad Alam

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Kaushik, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)

depreciation on Tanker, Rs.1,33,737/-on account of discrepancies in Loan & Advances, Rs.2,87,105/-on account of interest paid for Tanker purchase, Rs.1,23,876/-on account of Tanker hire charges, and Rs.51,650/- on account of car maintenance. While making the assessment, the AO observed that assessee has claimed Car maintenance expenses whereas there was no motor

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR vs. DEBEANJANA HARD COKE PRIVATE LIMITED, HETEDOBA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation and addition of Rs. 45,956/- on account of disallowance u/s. 10 r.w.s. 36(1)(v) of the Act. At the outset, the appellant claims that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) casually and without identification of the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated and the AO erred in imposing penalty u/s 271

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

271(1)(a) of the Act was not valid. Thus, ouranswers to all the three questions referred to this court are in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2013-14 17. Anand And Co. (supra) cited by the Revenue, proceeds on the basis that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act did contain

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

ITA 357/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

depreciation and therefore it could not avail benefit of Section 80IA is immaterial. Let us take a case that the assessee had profit in ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12 Hutchison Telcom East Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT/Cir/Rng-07Kol. AYs 04-05 to 08-09 Page 26 AY 1997-98. Would assessee not claim deduction u/s. 80IA in such sit9uaton