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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

depreciation in respect of each assets, which was previously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciable asset, was governed by the specific provisions of Section 43(6) read with Section 41(4) of the Act and not by the provisions

BIRENDRANATH SAMANTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Birendra Nath Samanta Assistant Commissioner Of Anandapally, Sripally Vs Income Tax, Cirlce-2, Burdwan Burdwan - 713103 [Pan : Akaps8240C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 12/05/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 253 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. In The Condonation Application, The Assessee Stated That An Affidavit & An Application Has Been Filed Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Impugned Order Was Passed On 12/05/2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Ex-Parte. The Said Appellate Order Was Sent Through E- Mail At Debudan1975@Gmail.Com, Which Belonged To Shri Debabrata Dan, A Resident Of Burdwan & Looking After The Income Tax Matters

section 41(1) and held that the assessee had received amortization benefit. Amortization is an accounting term that refers to the process of allocating the cost of an asset over a period of time, hence, it is nothing else than depreciation

MANOJ SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.455/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Manoj Singh, Vs. Dcit, Cir-51/Kol, 47, B.T.Road, Uttarapan, Kolkata-700054 Khardah, 24 Pgs (N), Kolkata-700116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Altps 9206 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-15/14-15/Cir-51/Kol, Dated 23.02.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,97,213/- Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act By Making The Addition On Account Of Remission Of Liability U/S.41(1) At Rs.9,00,690/-. The Assessee Runs A Transport Business Under The Name M/S Ma Kali The Name M/S Ma Kali Automobile. While Making The Assessment

section 41 (1) inserted by the Finance Act No. 2, 1996 with effect from 1-4-1997 was not applicable. However when the assessee claims to have paid the Sundry Creditors and when the A.O. has raised specific queries about the same, it was incumbent on the assessee to adduce evidence and to present the details before

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

depreciation to be allowed for unlimited years. It is a fact that the amendment in section 32(2) by the Finance Act will be effective from 1st April 2002, but intention behind the amendment could only be interpreted as if it has the effect retrospectively. In addition to above we also find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

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. Hence, assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at the specified rate. 26 M/s. Progressive Constructions Ltd. “ It is therefore sufficiently clear that the learned Special Bench has settled the issue treating a similar licence to collect tollway to be an intangible asset under the relevant statutory provision. We therefore adopt

D.C.I.T CIR - 4,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KALYANPUR CEMENT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

41(1) of the Act in the year(s) of write-back. The provisions of section 28 of the Act deals with profits and gains of business or profession and clause (iv) thereof says that the value of any benefit or perquisite, ITA No.1009/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-4 Kol. Vs. M/ss Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. Page 7 whether convertible

D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case

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

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADD.CIT,RANGE-5,, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the revenue’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

depreciation of Rs. 1,15,41,587/- under section 32 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

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

section 41(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, the Ground No. 7 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 18. Disallowance of depreciation

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

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

section 41(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, the Ground No. 7 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 18. Disallowance of depreciation

HARMUNY ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata 32A/28, Suren Sarkar Road Vs Kolkata - 700010 [Pan : Aacch5841H] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwary, A/R Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 31/01/2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Order U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Arbitrary, Unjustified & Bad In Law. 2.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By Ao Amounting To Rs. 6,85,53,691/- Towards Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts Under Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Fact That The Same Was Actually Written Off From The Accounts Of The Appellant In Previous Year. 3.) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,12,27,393/- U/S 41(1) Read With Section 28(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Presumption That Liability

41(1) read with section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the presumption that liability 2 I.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Harmuny Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ceased to exist even when the liability existed in the accounts of the appellant. 4.) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

41(2) of the Act carefully and in our view the section deals with the loss arising from building, machinery, plant or furniture which are owned by the assessee and in respect of which depreciation

M/S AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ICI INDIA LTD.),KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

SECTION 41(2) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SALE OF RUBBER CHEMICALS BUSINESS AND BANGALORE LAND AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION