DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. JUPITER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata ………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Jupiter International Limited..……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Unnayanam, 20A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-19.. [Pan: Aaacj6956B] Appearances By: Shri P. N Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Nandini Sureka, Advocate, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 197 Days & The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Petition, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The ld. also submits that when an asset is sold, any losses are first deducted from the Revaluation Reserve and if there is any remaining surplus, it is transferred to the General Reserve, which can be distributed to shareholders, however, losses or depreciation

BRAJBHUMI NIRMAAN PRIVATE LIMITED,SALT LAKE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56 shall\nbe the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares, as shall be\ndetermined under sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (e), at\nthe option of the assessee, where the consideration received by the assessee is from a\nresident ; and under sub-clauses (a) to (e) at the option

ITO, WARD - 11(3), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. LNB RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 56 of the Act, the fair market value of a property, other than immovable property, shall be determined in the following manner, namely,— (a) valuation of jewellery,— (i) ...; (ii) …; Page 6 of 22 I.T.A. No.: 2011/Kol/2018 C.O. No.: 117/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. LNB Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (iii) …date; (b) valuation of archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures

ACIT, CIR.-3(2), GANGTOK vs. M/S RODIC SIKKIM PROJECT PVT. LTD, EAST SIKKIM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Rodic Sikkim Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Nagar, Singtam Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Gangtok East Sikkim - 737134 (Pan: Aahcr1752J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)- Siliguri Vide Appeal No. – 62/Cit(A)/Slg/2017-18 Dated 24/09/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Circle – 3(2), Gangtok, Dated 30/12/2017. 2. The Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:-

section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:— (a) the fair market value of unquoted equity shares = (A–L) × (PV), (PE) where, A = book value of the assets in the balance sheet as reduced

M/S. EARNEST TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravii.T.A. No. 2530/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Earnest Towers Private Limited……….………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Aabce 8612 N] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule, C.A Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. K. Srihari, Cit- Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

depreciation taken on machinery etc. All the above would be cases of income being affected due to a transaction on capital account. This is not the revenue's case here. Therefore, although Section 56

M/S GENERAL POLYTEX PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 166/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Limited,...........Appellant 0/2171-72, Malviniwadi, Sonifalia, Bhagatalav, Gujarat-395003 [Pan: Aaccb5335L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...............................Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri M.K. Patwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 O R D E R

section 32 of the Act are crystal clear and when the asset is put to use for less than 180 days, 50% of the depreciation is allowable. The AO has accepted in the order that the assets have put to use accepted during the year. Accordingly, 50% of the allowable depreciation can be claimed by the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

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

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

56,401/- on the new assets which were acquire during the relevant year. In the present appeal, the appellant has now raised a claim that in respect of actual cost of machinery installed but put to use for period less than 180 days in the preceding FY 2009-10, on which the additional depreciation was allowed at the reduced rate

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

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

56,401/- on the new assets which were acquire during the relevant year. In the present appeal, the appellant has now raised a claim that in respect of actual cost of machinery installed but put to use for period less than 180 days in the preceding FY 2009-10, on which the additional depreciation was allowed at the reduced rate

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

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

56,401/- on the new assets which were acquire during the relevant year. In the present appeal, the appellant has now raised a claim that in respect of actual cost of machinery installed but put to use for period less than 180 days in the preceding FY 2009-10, on which the additional depreciation was allowed at the reduced rate

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., 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 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running, repairs & maintenance of aircrafts 2,75,56

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 38(2) of the Act, the proportionate expenditure 5 A.Yrs.2011-12 incurred on running , repairs & maintenance of the aircrafts and depreciation were disallowed by the ld AO as under:- Expenditure on running, repairs & maintenance of aircrafts 2,75,56

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BENGAL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.1218/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cir – 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Bengal Beverages Pvt. Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 6, Alipore Park Road, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb5984E (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue/Department By : Shri R. P. Nag, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 502/Cit(A)-4/Circle-11/Kol/14- 15, Dated 06.07.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.03.2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.90,56,200/- U/S 32(1) (Iia) Of The I.T.Act,1961, Relating To Visicooler Machine.”

56,200/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had deleted the addition made by AO. During the course of the appellate proceeding, the assessee explained to CIT(A) that the law does not specifically lay down the condition that the assets

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

AURELIA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-49(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

depreciation as provided u/s 32(ii) of the Act if the assessee declares income from other sources u/s 56(2)(ii) &(iii) of the Act, which relates to the following income:- “56. (1)……………………… (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E) - 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal]

56,35,408/- on such assets. While completing the impugned assessment, Ld. AO has not allowed the said claim of deprecation and made the addition to the total income of the assessee without giving any reason for the same in the assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Ld. CIT(A) while dealing

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

section 80IA(1) is ‘….. Allowed, in computing ….’. The Supreme Court in context of depreciation in case of Mahendra Mills (243 ITR 56