DCIT, CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1058 & 1059/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 916/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos.59 & 60/Kol/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1058 & 1059/Kol/2011) Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] ( Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Section’ and ‘Erection & Fabrication’ were an integral part of the installed plant & machinery and they have been put to use. Therefore, the A.O’s action in disallowing depreciation on these assets are not justified as per law. The A.O is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,13,71,906/-.” 7.1. With regard to disallowance of depreciation on ‘Electrical

DCIT, CIRCLE - 9, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1058 & 1059/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 916/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos.59 & 60/Kol/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1058 & 1059/Kol/2011) Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-9, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcp 5021 A] ( Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Section’ and ‘Erection & Fabrication’ were an integral part of the installed plant & machinery and they have been put to use. Therefore, the A.O’s action in disallowing depreciation on these assets are not justified as per law. The A.O is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,13,71,906/-.” 7.1. With regard to disallowance of depreciation on ‘Electrical

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether coal mining is production of coal and, therefore , assessee engaged in mining of coal, would be entitled to additional depreciation on survey instrument acquired by it during relevant year - Held, yes [Para 6.3.] [In favour of assessee]" 7. I find that in the instant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether coal mining is production of coal and, therefore , assessee engaged in mining of coal, would be entitled to additional depreciation on survey instrument acquired by it during relevant year - Held, yes [Para 6.3.] [In favour of assessee]" 7. I find that in the instant

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ORISSA MANGANESE & MINERALS LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Depreciation - Additional depreciation - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether coal mining is production of coal and, therefore , assessee engaged in mining of coal, would be entitled to additional depreciation on survey instrument acquired by it during relevant year - Held, yes [Para 6.3.] [In favour of assessee]" 7. I find that in the instant

PUNCHA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LIMITED,BANKURA vs. ACIT, WARD 3(1), , BANKURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 80P, for non-\nverification of expenses and disallowance of depreciation on account of\naddition to fixed assets respectively. Aggrieved with the said order, the\nassessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the\nappeal of the assessee as the assessee failed to comply with the notices\nissued for hearing and it was inferred that the assessee

ITO,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHAHI ROADWAYS(P)LTD, HOWRAH

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

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 32 of the Act. However, the Learned AO sought to disallow the depreciation of Rs. 6,09,570/-. Before the Learned CITA, the assessee filed the provisional registration certificates in march 2007 itself and argued that the vehicles were effectively put to use by march 2007 itself. The Learned CITA held that the assessee is a transporter with annual

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SANTOSH PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Santosh Promoters Private O/O The Dcit, Cc-1(1), Limited Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Gariahat, Kolkata-700029 Kolkata-700107 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs7546M Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025

depreciation is not sustainable. In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs.3,63,137/- under the head ‘capital gains’ is deleted. Santosh Promoters private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 08. Considering the facts of the above case and the order passed by the appellate authority, we are in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT (A) with

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VISHAL RETAIL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkeyand Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 32(iia) of the Income Tax Act additional depreciation is available when the plant and machinery were not installed at any office premises or any residential accommodation, including accommodation in the nature of a guest-house. It is allowable only on plant & machinery used for the manufacturing process. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the opinion

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EPCOS FERRITES LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH M/S. EPCOS INDIA P. LTD.,), NADIA

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed, except other ground no

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

46A of the I.T. Rules. 4.We shall first take-up additions deleted by ld CIT(A) on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. The above summarized and concise grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustmentsare given below for ready reference: Transfer Pricing Grounds (i).Ld.CIT (A) erred in deleting following additions made on account of Transfer Pricing adjustments by ignoring analysis done

DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S RAV DRAVYA PVT LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenues is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 103/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Rav Dravya Private Limited Tax, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Hastings Chambers, 2Nd Floor Vs 7/C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata - 700001 Pan : Aabcr3154Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/03/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. This Revenue’S Appeal Is Time Barred By 198 Days & The Petition Seeking Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Stating That The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal Was Attributable To The Restrictions Imposed Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. We Have Heard Both The Sides & Find That There Is Reasonable Cause For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal On Time. Hence We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

46A in the instant case. In such view of the matter, the AO is directed to delete the impugned amount of Rs.3,02,57,500/-. This ground is allowed.” I.T.A. No. 103/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Rav Dravya Private Limited 7 6. A perusal of the above reproduced submissions of the ld. A/R of the assessee which have been

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation or capital expenditure on scientific research, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 shall apply in relation to speculation business as they apply in relation to any other business. (4) No loss shall be carried forward under this section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed

SRI NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 48(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma.............................…………………………………Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babuy Street, Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Akups6148K] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 48(3) 3, Govt. Place (W) Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 05, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) 14, Kolkata, Dated 28.04.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering That The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Not Completing The Assessment By Applying The Provision Of Section 44Ae Of The Act, 1961 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Without Prejudice The Ground No 1 The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Of A Sum Of Rs. 21,52,648/- Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Income’.

depreciation allowable to the assessee amounting to Rs. 11,45,432/- as the notional income of the assessee. In the bank account of the assessee a sum of Rs. 3,20,789/- was credited which was claimed to a loan by the assessee. The assessee however could not substantiate the 3 I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Naresh Kumar Sharma

DCIT,CC-VII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SALTEE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

46A of Income Tax Rules 1962. Amounts not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38[38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”,— (a) in the case of any assessee— 40[(i) ------------ (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, 41[rent

ORIENT PAPER & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal in ITA 430/Kol/2013 of assessee is partly allowed and appeal in ITA 648/Kol/2013 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 143(3) of the act. Therefore, we’re of the opinion that the assessee’s entitled to claim depreciation HT lines and feeder bay and find no merit in ground no-3 raised by the revenue, accordingly it is dismissed. 30. Ground no- 4 raised by the revenue is as under: 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

depreciation of residential property let out. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he has instructions from the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 21. The next common issue in these appeals of revenue

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

depreciation of residential property let out. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he has instructions from the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 21. The next common issue in these appeals of revenue

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

depreciation of residential property let out. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he has instructions from the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 21. The next common issue in these appeals of revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE -8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

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

depreciation of residential property let out. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he has instructions from the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. ITA Nos. 233 & 1041/Kol/2012 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 21. The next common issue in these appeals of revenue