JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

depreciation of Rs.19,69,869/- on the ground that amendment made in Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in section

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 being claimed at Rs.33,69

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 MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 28.12.2010. 2. The said captioned appeal filed by the Assessee is time barred by four days. The Assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay and expressed the reasons of delay. After verification of petition we found that there was a reasonable cause

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]

69 SOT 217 (Kolkata ITAT) b. Century Enka Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 644 (Kolkata ITAT) Universal Cables Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 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

ALISHAN STEELS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that

ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature in introducing the amendment, as stated in the explanatory note, is to avoid unnecessary litigation and to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that

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

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12

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

69,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,84,82,81,000/-. Therefore, lower of the two being unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.37,35,12,000/- has been claimed as deduction u/s.115JB2(iii), and that the claim made in the previous year does not affect the claim in the subsequent year as the position of ITA No.356, 343, 357, 377/Kol/2009, 485, 482/Kol/2010, 673/K/11 & 431/K/12