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

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

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

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 of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. HUTCHISON TELECOM EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 7, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED, KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

ACIT, CIRCLE - 7, KOLKATA vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD., KOLKATA

343/K/2009 04-05 Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA of the Act. 6. The assessee while determining the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act has claimed the deduction for Rs.37,35,12,000/- on account of unabsorbed book depreciation being less than book loss brought forward. The assessee furnished the details of unabsorbed deprecation as well as unabsorbed book loss as detailed under. ITA No.356

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, being proportionate or otherwise, on the same. Hence the provisions of section 38(2) of the Act are not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. We also find that similar issue had cropped up for the Asst Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 in assessee’s own case ITA Nos. 1431/1557/Kol/2011 ; ITA Nos. 932 & 866/Kol/2012

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:

depreciation , being proportionate or otherwise, on the same. Hence the provisions of section 38(2) of the Act are not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. We also find that similar issue had cropped up for the Asst Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 in assessee’s own case ITA Nos. 1431/1557/Kol/2011 ; ITA Nos. 932 & 866/Kol/2012

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:

depreciation , being proportionate or otherwise, on the same. Hence the provisions of section 38(2) of the Act are not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. We also find that similar issue had cropped up for the Asst Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 in assessee’s own case ITA Nos. 1431/1557/Kol/2011 ; ITA Nos. 932 & 866/Kol/2012

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

64,901) 20,69,044 Interest received (net) (-) 2,91,053 ------------------ 18,20,101 The ld AO held that the aforesaid incomes were not derived from the export of articles or things and accordingly denied the exemption u/s 10B of the Act on the same. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on various decisions. The ld CITA granted

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

64,901) 20,69,044 Interest received (net) (-) 2,91,053 ------------------ 18,20,101 The ld AO held that the aforesaid incomes were not derived from the export of articles or things and accordingly denied the exemption u/s 10B of the Act on the same. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on various decisions. The ld CITA granted

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

depreciation of Rs. 12,19,30,258/-. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that compensation paid of Rs.69,61,595/- to obtain raw materials is Revenue Expenditure not Capital expenditure. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case as well