M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

32(1)(ii) shall not be interpreted to mean that it impliedly restrict the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. We are of the view that the assessee now is entitled for 50% additional depreciation, because in the year in which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50% of additional depreciation

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

32(1)(ii) shall not be interpreted to mean that it impliedly restrict the additional depreciation to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year. We are of the view that the assessee now is entitled for 50% additional depreciation, because in the year in which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50% of additional depreciation

BEEYU OVERSEAS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIR.4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

32(1) (iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation

SECOND VIVEKANANDA BRIDGE TOLLYWAYCO.PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Second Vivekananda V/S. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Bridge Tollway Co. Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., Block Gp, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Salt Lake Electronics Kolkata-69 Complex, Kolkata-91 [Pan No.Aahcs 8573 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Rudra, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 21-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Calls Into Question The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 04.11.2016 Passed In Case No.1221/Cit(A)-1/C-2(2)/2015-16 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Its Depreciation Claimed Of ₹41,99,22,054 In Respect Of Licence To Collect The Toll Revenue Of The Second Vivekananda Bridge (Treated As The Relevant Intangible Asset) & Disallowing Leave Encashment Provision Of ₹1,84,562/- U/S 43B(F) In Assessment Order Dated 11.05.2015, Involving Proceeding U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short As ‘The Act’. 2. We Come To Former Issue Of Depreciation Disallowance In Respect Of Assessee’S Licence To Collect Toll Charges On The Second Vivekananda Bridge.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The A.O held that it was not be eligible for claiming Depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets, and disallowed the appellant's claim for Depreciation of Rs.41,99,22,054. The Assessing Officer in his Order, also made referred to the CBDT's Circular No.09/2014 dated 23/04/2014 and held that

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

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

iii) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), being the lower of figures of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in giving a finding that the Appellant is necessarily required

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

32/ CIT(A)-22/11-12/15-16/Kol (assessment year-wise) respectively, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s sec. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) / paper books forming part of records stand perused. It transpires at the outset that these cases involved almost identical issue(s). The same are therefore

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

32/ CIT(A)-22/11-12/15-16/Kol (assessment year-wise) respectively, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s sec. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) / paper books forming part of records stand perused. It transpires at the outset that these cases involved almost identical issue(s). The same are therefore

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

32/ CIT(A)-22/11-12/15-16/Kol (assessment year-wise) respectively, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s sec. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) / paper books forming part of records stand perused. It transpires at the outset that these cases involved almost identical issue(s). The same are therefore

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTAN GUMS & CHEMICAL LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

iii) of Form 3CD. In response the assessee replied that it had procured LDO/FO/LPG etc as consumables at concessional rate on the strength of Form No. 26 and 40 prescribed under Sales Tax Act. However, the sales tax authorities held that it is neither raw material nor processing material and consumables and raised a demand of Rs. 7.16 lacs which

HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

iii) of Form 3CD. In response the assessee replied that it had procured LDO/FO/LPG etc as consumables at concessional rate on the strength of Form No. 26 and 40 prescribed under Sales Tax Act. However, the sales tax authorities held that it is neither raw material nor processing material and consumables and raised a demand of Rs. 7.16 lacs which

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

1), Kol. Page 18 depreciation. In the instant case, the lessor (Orix Auto) being the owner had the right to claim depreciation and the assessee has not claimed any depreciation as per the provisions of the IT Act and instead had claimed the entire lease rental as revenue expenditure. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision