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

depreciation at the rate 25% on\nthe said amount for this year and then 25% on WDV only.\n25.6. Simultaneously, the said disallowance i.e., Rs. 1,19,67,718/- is also\na subject matter of addition by virtue of clause (f) under Explanation [1] to\nthe section 115JB for determining the MAT amount payable by the\nassessee.\"\n10.2

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

1,37,25,0001- on which it had earned some capital gains. On the said capital gains the .assessee had also claimed that it was entitled for exemption under Section 54E of the Income Tax Act. Admittedly, the asset was purchased in the year 1972 and sold sometime in the year 1989. Thus, the asset is almost 17 years

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

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

37(1) of the Act. Thus, on the\nfacts of the case, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct and is\nreversed, the findings of the Ld. AO are upheld and Ground No. 1 of\nthe appeal is allowed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to the Ld. CIT(A) erring in giving part relief\nto the extent

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

37,35,12,000/-. As the unabsorbed depreciation is lower than the amount of brought forward losses therefore in our considered view the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of unabsorbed depreciation while determining the profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The amount of unabsorbed depreciation is inclusive of the deprecation pertaining to the assessment year

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2109/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata………………………………………….……Appellant Vs. M/S National Engineering Industrial Ltd…..……..........……...…..…..Respondent 11Th Floor, Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacn9969L] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca & Shri Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of Balance Additional Depreciation On The Assets Which Were Put To Use In Earlier Year. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add To Delete, Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing..” 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Time-Barred By 18 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of The Said Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein Reasons For The Delay In Filing This Appeal Have Been Mentioned. Considering The Above Reasons, We Condone The Delay.

section 32(1) of the Act. The AO also noted that though later on amendment has come, it only comes to effect in the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01.04.2016 and noting that it is not a retrospective enactment, he disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased

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]

37(1) of the Act would automatically apply. 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under dispute had emanated from the sales tax assessment. The appeal against the levy of penalty had been preferred by the assessee dealer before the appellate authority under Sales tax act and the same is pending disposal. Hence, in these

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]

37(1) of the Act would automatically apply. 4.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue under dispute had emanated from the sales tax assessment. The appeal against the levy of penalty had been preferred by the assessee dealer before the appellate authority under Sales tax act and the same is pending disposal. Hence, in these

M/S VODAFONE EAST LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T RANGE - 7,KOL., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

37(1) of the Act and accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed. 11. Disallowance of provision for Asset Restoration Obligation (ARO) written back – Rs.6,52,00,000/- I.T.A. No. 1864/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & Assessment Year : 2010-2011 Page 46 of 56 The next issue to be decided

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:

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.” 37