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

section 57 (Deduction against income from Other Sources”. After serving the valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the large deduction claimed u/s 57 and more particularly depreciation

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily

M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (I) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily

DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily

RECKITT DENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

57(iii) of the Act makes the position stronger. 20. In the case of Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (1979) 118 ITR 261 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the legislative history and noted that when the Income Tax Bill of 1961 was introduced, Section 37(1) required that the expenditure should have been incurred “wholly, necessarily

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm]

57 taxmann.com 95 (Kolkata ITAT) c. Thus, following the aforesaid decisions, the said ground of appeal is allowed and decided in favour of the appellant. The Ld. AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs. 6,36,83,752/-. However, as a consequence of allowing the said additional depreciation, the closing WDV of plant & machinery as reported

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

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, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S HINDUSTHAN GUM & CHEMICALS 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 M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

57,24,672/- Total Rs. 76,14,772/- The assessee had sold the entire mutual funds debt schemes amounting to Rs. 705.16 lacs. during the year under appeal. The assessee had sufficient own funds which is quite evident from the perusal of the balance sheet and accordingly it could be safely concluded that all the investments were made only

HINDUSTAN GUM & CHEMICALS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-12(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 M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

57,24,672/- Total Rs. 76,14,772/- The assessee had sold the entire mutual funds debt schemes amounting to Rs. 705.16 lacs. during the year under appeal. The assessee had sufficient own funds which is quite evident from the perusal of the balance sheet and accordingly it could be safely concluded that all the investments were made only

M/S. ZENITH EXPORTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

57,854/- (unabsorbed depreciation determined of Rs.6,04,51,882/- minus unabsorbed depreciation, which related to Zenith Textiles – Rs.5,98,94,082/-).” Therefore, the AO for the relevant AY 2004-05 disallowed the claim of unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward u/s. 10B(6) of the Act relating to Zenith Textiles at Rs.7,67,01,019/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received by the assessee would have to be construed as a Capital Receipt and the same need not be reduced from the cost

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 under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 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. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received

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 under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed”. Page 36 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. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this tribunal supra, we hold that the IPA received