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

2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the Page 8 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. following manner under clause (a) or clause (b), at the option of the assessee, namely:— (a) the fair market

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

x) of clause (24) of section 2 which is chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", deductions, so far as may be, in accordance with the provisions of clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ii) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub- section

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, GANGTOK vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES, SIKKIM

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned Departmental Representatives are very fair in informing

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation details qua section 80IC deduction of ₹436,98,608/-. Its manufacturing unit as per records was at Khasra (No.786/1064; opposite Nayabazar, Majhigaon, Jorethang, Sikkim). 6. The Assessing Officer then issued a detailed show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 inter alia spelling out various clarification(s) sought from the taxpayer. Both the Learned 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Unicorn Industries

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 I find that

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. LUCKY GOLD STAR COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation etc (Note 23) and Administrative & Selling & Distribution expenses (Note 24) which aggregates to ₹2,06,51,871/-. As such, the disallowance of indirect expenses aggregating to ₹2,06,51,871/- as per Note 21 to 24 is not sustainable being unfounded. As regards the application of the provisions of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 I find that

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(1) of the Act would permit including within its head, all income not otherwise excluded, it does not provide for a charge to tax on Capital

DCIT,CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DERBY TEA & INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :1998-99

x) and 36(1)(va) of the IT Act held that Provident Fund contributions paid by an Employer prior to the “due date” of filing of the return is allowable deduction. In the present case the appellant in compliance to the manner prescribed on the relevant P.F Scheme paid Employer and Employee’s contributions to Provident Fund on or before

DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

X, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. These bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and revenue pertain to the issues of the same assessee for the different assessment year, therefore for the sake of convenience, we heard all these

ACIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ICI INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

X, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. These bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and revenue pertain to the issues of the same assessee for the different assessment year, therefore for the sake of convenience, we heard all these

ICI INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

X, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively. 2. These bunch of appeals filed by the assessee and revenue pertain to the issues of the same assessee for the different assessment year, therefore for the sake of convenience, we heard all these

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

56,78,181/-, this is to submit that as already been explained in detail above since the purchases were not bogus andsince the purchases are fully supported by delivery challans, weighment slips etc. and the payment have been made by 'Account Payee Cheques, question of such additions/disallowances should not and cannot arise. Moreover, CENVAT Credit having been taken

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

56,78,181/-, this is to submit that as already been explained in detail above since the purchases were not bogus andsince the purchases are fully supported by delivery challans, weighment slips etc. and the payment have been made by 'Account Payee Cheques, question of such additions/disallowances should not and cannot arise. Moreover, CENVAT Credit having been taken

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

depreciation and other capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability crystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss being only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the assessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred during the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

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 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 2 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants for generating electricity: Page 11 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. 9. Revenue