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]

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against the assessee. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The other issue no. 5 is in relation to adjustment made by AO in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act where

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]

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” By following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue no. 1 to 4 are goes against the assessee. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The other issue no. 5 is in relation to adjustment made by AO in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act where

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

depreciation account and sufficient documentary evidences has not been placed on record by the assessee to substantiate that in all the past years the provision for ARO was in fact included in the book depreciation which stood disallowed while arriving at the taxable income. The Learned CIT(Appeals) also stated that the assessee has also not explained that whether

M/S ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1281 /Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation. The ld AO accordingly recomputed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA as under:- Profit from 80IA unit (as per return of income) 80,39,696 Less: Interest received (as per point a) above) 5,12,928 Less: Head office exps (as per point b) above) 8,84,703 Less: Diff in Depn (as per point c) above) 1

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

depreciation claim applying provisions of Sec. 43A of the I.T. Act. As Plant and machinery was not purchased from a country outside India, the ld. A.R. has strongly contended that provisions of Sec. 43A are not applicable in the case of the appellant. The Act is silent as to how the adjustments will have to be done when asset

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

depreciation claim applying provisions of Sec. 43A of the I.T. Act. As Plant and machinery was not purchased from a country outside India, the ld. A.R. has strongly contended that provisions of Sec. 43A are not applicable in the case of the appellant. The Act is silent as to how the adjustments will have to be done when asset

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

1 (SC)]. It is stated that CBDT Instruction No 3/2010 is neither binding on the assessee nor appellate authorities in view of the decisions in the following cases: (a) Customs Calcutta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [(2004) 165 ELT 257 (SC)] (b) Vikrant Tyres vs First ITO [(1993) 202 ITR 454 (Kar)] (c) CIT vs Hero Cycles

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

1 (SC)]. It is stated that CBDT Instruction No 3/2010 is neither\nbinding on the assessee nor appellate authorities in view of the\ndecisions in the following cases:\n(a) Customs Calcutta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [(2004) 165 ELT\n257 (SC)]\n(b) Vikrant Tyres vs First ITO [(1993) 202 ITR 454 (Kar)]\n(c) CIT vs Hero Cycles

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

1 (SC)]. It is stated that CBDT Instruction No 3/2010 is neither\nbinding on the assessee nor appellate authorities in view of the\ndecisions in the following cases:\n(a) Customs Calcutta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [(2004) 165 ELT\n257 (SC)]\n(b) Vikrant Tyres vs First ITO [(1993) 202 ITR 454 (Kar)]\n(c) CIT vs Hero Cycles

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

1 (SC)]. It is stated that CBDT Instruction No 3/2010 is neither\nbinding on the assessee nor appellate authorities in view of the\ndecisions in the following cases:\n(a) Customs Calcutta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [(2004) 165 ELT\n257 (SC)]\n(b) Vikrant Tyres vs First ITO [(1993) 202 ITR 454 (Kar)]\n(c) CIT vs Hero Cycles

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

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

1) ITA Nos.930,931 & 782/Kol/2012- 3 A-AM M/s. Kesoram Industries Ltd of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the capital asset, as presumably linked by the Assessing Officer to such realised foreign exchange loss. 4 That the appellant craves leave to add to and/ or amend, alter, modify

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

1 (SC)]. It is stated that CBDT Instruction No 3/2010 is neither\nbinding on the assessee nor appellate authorities in view of the\ndecisions in the following cases:\n(a) Customs Calcutta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [(2004) 165 ELT\n257 (SC)]\n(b) Vikrant Tyres vs First ITO [(1993) 202 ITR 454 (Kar)]\n(c) CIT vs Hero Cycles

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

1 (SC)]. It is stated that CBDT Instruction No 3/2010 is neither\nbinding on the assessee nor appellate authorities in view of the\ndecisions in the following cases:\n(a) Customs Calcutta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [(2004) 165 ELT\n257 (SC)]\n(b) Vikrant Tyres vs First ITO [(1993) 202 ITR 454 (Kar)]\n(c) CIT vs Hero Cycles

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 43A of the Act would apply. 9. Now the question is, whether the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss on foreign currency loan borrowed to acquire indigenous fixed assets and/or imported fixed assets is chargeable to income tax or is not allowable as a revenue loss. 9.1. In case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT – 116 ITR 1

DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 43A of the Act would apply. 9. Now the question is, whether the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss on foreign currency loan borrowed to acquire indigenous fixed assets and/or imported fixed assets is chargeable to income tax or is not allowable as a revenue loss. 9.1. In case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT – 116 ITR 1

M/S. KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 43A of the Act would apply. 9. Now the question is, whether the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss on foreign currency loan borrowed to acquire indigenous fixed assets and/or imported fixed assets is chargeable to income tax or is not allowable as a revenue loss. 9.1. In case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT – 116 ITR 1

M/S KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 43A of the Act would apply. 9. Now the question is, whether the foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss on foreign currency loan borrowed to acquire indigenous fixed assets and/or imported fixed assets is chargeable to income tax or is not allowable as a revenue loss. 9.1. In case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT – 116 ITR 1

D.C..I.T.,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SISECAM FLAT GLASS INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY HNG FLAT GLASS LTD.), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and cross objection of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 43A had no application whatsoever in the given facts of the present case. 5.8. For the reasons set out above the MTM loss of Rs. 5, 11 ,03,987/­ incurred by the appellant under the interest rate swap arrangement is held to be fully allowable as deduction from. the profits of the business