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

depreciation on Furniture & Fixtures when the assessee,\nexcept for claiming that the equipment identified for having claimed excess\ndepreciation are integral to the manufacturing process, has not been able to\nprove or justify as to how the concerned items enhance the production\nprocess or output of the business.\n2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

depreciation on Furniture & Fixtures when the assessee,\nexcept for claiming that the equipment identified for having claimed excess\ndepreciation are integral to the manufacturing process, has not been able to\nprove or justify as to how the concerned items enhance the production\nprocess or output of the business.\n2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KARNATAKA

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

depreciation and fixed amount of expenditure for the cost of boundary wall was equally spread over the period of lease. We find that the AO has taken the cost of boundary wall as cost improvement and the assessee has claimed the same as amortization of such expenditure but section 35D

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

Depreciation on fixed assets as well as on temporary structure and other facilities used during the period of construction (see paragraph 9.4 and 9.5 of this Note). (j) Expenses on test runs (see paragraph 11 of this Note). (k) Expenses on land grading and leveling (see paragraph 96 of this Note). Taking a consistent view by the decision

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

Depreciation on fixed assets as well as on temporary structure and other facilities used during the period of construction (see paragraph 9.4 and 9.5 of this Note). (j) Expenses on test runs (see paragraph 11 of this Note). (k) Expenses on land grading and leveling (see paragraph 96 of this Note). Taking a consistent view by the decision

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 on grounds that these have been claimed some of these claims were on fixed assets which were a part of the building fetching rent, and cannot be allowed as a business expense, The Ld. A.O has also disallowed an amount of Rs.3,73,126/­ claimed by the appellant towards repairs and maintenance of the building, Similarly

M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

35D deduction claim & exemption on profit from joint venture(s) and section 14A disallowance involving Rs.1,12,60,000/-, Rs.40,38,000/- & Rs.2,48,10,148/-; respectively. 4. Case file suggests that PCIT termed the foregoing regular assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as follows: I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 M/s. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year

ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

depreciation of rs.5,83,244/- allowed in respect of the said expenditure will have to be reverted back.” Similar is the finding in AY 2005-06 also. Aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A) in both the years, revenue is now in appeals before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances

ITO, WARD - 7(2), KOLKATA vs. OSD COKE PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

depreciation of rs.5,83,244/- allowed in respect of the said expenditure will have to be reverted back.” Similar is the finding in AY 2005-06 also. Aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A) in both the years, revenue is now in appeals before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances

WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 1761& 1762/Kol/2011 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

depreciation and fixed amount of expenditure for the cost of boundary wall was equally spread over for the period of lease. We find that the AO has taken the cost of boundary wall as cost improvement and the assessee has claimed the same as amortization of such expenditure but section 35D

M/S LONG VIEW TEA COMPANY LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वाक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. ए. एल. सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 143(3) out of the miscellaneous expenditure, representing 1/10th of Rs.7,68,13,902/- being the realizable value of advance against capital goods by wrongly and illegally, treating the same as capital expenditure, without placing cognizance to the order dated 16.10.2011, passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, wherein the Hon’ble Court, while approving the scheme

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BEEYU OVERSEAS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 628/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Jcit (Osd), Circle-4(1), Kolkata…………...................................................….…………..…......Appellant M/S. Beeyu Overseas Ltd....……………………………………....………………..……………………Respondent 64A, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcb 3327 K] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

35D of the Act. We find no infirmity in the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 7. The next issue is the set-off of loses of the amalgamated company. During the year three subsidiary companies were merged with the assessee company. The loss of the amalgamated companies of Rs.9,63,330/-, was allowed in terms of Section

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BEEYU OVERSEAS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 628/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Jcit (Osd), Circle-4(1), Kolkata…………...................................................….…………..…......Appellant M/S. Beeyu Overseas Ltd....……………………………………....………………..……………………Respondent 64A, Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aabcb 3327 K] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

35D of the Act. We find no infirmity in the same and dismiss this ground of the revenue. 7. The next issue is the set-off of loses of the amalgamated company. During the year three subsidiary companies were merged with the assessee company. The loss of the amalgamated companies of Rs.9,63,330/-, was allowed in terms of Section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SUMAN INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

35D, f) The assessee also submitted a letter from Commissioner of Kolkata Police clarifying that said (erected structure) exclusively belongs to KP i.e. ownership is not with the assessee. However, AO disregarded the claim of assessee by observing as under:- 1) Letter of KP is meaningless in the code of law as agreement written on the stamp paper shall