ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S COMMAND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 571/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Command Constructions Private Ltd. [Pan: Aaccc5075A ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45(3) does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. 28. As far as the question whether the AO was justified in bringing to tax a sum of Rs.37,03,36,187/- as share of revaluation profit, is concerned

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 569/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaaco 7148 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45(3) does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. 28. As far as the question whether the AO was justified in bringing to tax a sum of Rs.37,03,36,187/- as share of revaluation profit, is concerned

ITO, WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLUE HEAVEN GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 570/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaccb 3287 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45(3) does not seek to substitute by any other figure the value agreed between the partners at which the asset is transferred by a partner to the firm. 28. As far as the question whether the AO was justified in bringing to tax a sum of Rs.37,03,36,187/- as share of revaluation profit, is concerned

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)99, which is engaged in the general insurance business and which has come into existence by operation of section 4 or section 5 or section 16 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972); (vii) "unabsorbed depreciation

BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIR.42, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2580 & 2581/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Circle - 42, Murshidabad Nh-34, Bmc House P.O. Chuanpur, Berhampore Murshidabad - 742101 [Pan : Aaalb0462D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Even Dated 26/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Kolkata Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal & Without Any Jurisdiction. 2. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Merit Of The Case, Therefore, The Order Passed By The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Is Completely Arbitrary, Unjustified & Illegal. 3. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Was Wrong In Not Considering The Facts That In Reopening The Assessment U/S. 148 (R.W.S. 147)

45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)99, which is engaged in the general insurance business and which has come into existence by operation of section 4 or section 5 or section 16 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972); (vii) "unabsorbed depreciation

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 2(45). The computation of commercial income necessarily envisages deduction of depreciation on the assets of the trusts and this

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Depreciation for the year was Rs 15,99,45,025/- which was duly disclosed in the return of income. 8.1. The assessee submitted that it had never claimed any deduction u/s 35CCB of the Act. It clarified that the whole confusion started pursuant to mentioning of the said section

DCIT,CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Depreciation for the year was Rs 15,99,45,025/- which was duly disclosed in the return of income. 8.1. The assessee submitted that it had never claimed any deduction u/s 35CCB of the Act. It clarified that the whole confusion started pursuant to mentioning of the said section

THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed and ground no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 69/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1860/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 8879 J ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

Depreciation for the year was Rs 15,99,45,025/- which was duly disclosed in the return of income. 8.1. The assessee submitted that it had never claimed any deduction u/s 35CCB of the Act. It clarified that the whole confusion started pursuant to mentioning of the said section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to Rs.14,93,45,096/- in respect of new plant and machinery purchased and installed in the preceding year but put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that year. In view of the second proviso to section

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to Rs.14,93,45,096/- in respect of new plant and machinery purchased and installed in the preceding year but put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that year. In view of the second proviso to section

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to Rs.14,93,45,096/- in respect of new plant and machinery purchased and installed in the preceding year but put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that year. In view of the second proviso to section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to Rs.14,93,45,096/- in respect of new plant and machinery purchased and installed in the preceding year but put to use for a period of less than 180 days in that year. In view of the second proviso to section

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

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 53,32,210/- being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,33,22,099/- ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in appellant's own case in DCIT -vs- EIH Limited (2015) I.T.A. No. 426/Ko1/2006 for AY 2002-03· ITA No.117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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]

45,835/-. In these circumstances, he prayed that the same may not be treated as incurred for infraction of any law for the time being in force . In response to this, the ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the same is incurred only for infraction of law and thereby the Explanation to Section

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]

45,835/-. In these circumstances, he prayed that the same may not be treated as incurred for infraction of any law for the time being in force . In response to this, the ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the same is incurred only for infraction of law and thereby the Explanation to Section

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) does not expressly prohibit the allowance of the balance 50 per cent depreciation In the subsequent year, then impliedly the appellant is legally entitled to remaining 50% of the additional depreciation, because in the year In which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50 Per cent of additional depreciation. I find

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

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

section 32(1)(ii) does not expressly prohibit the allowance of the balance 50 per cent depreciation In the subsequent year, then impliedly the appellant is legally entitled to remaining 50% of the additional depreciation, because in the year In which the machinery was first put to use the assessee claimed only 50 Per cent of additional depreciation. I find