DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPACE MATRIX MEDIA (P) LTD, HOWRAH

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, V/S. M/S Space Matrix Media P-7, Chowringhee (P)Ltd., Jalan Industrial Square, Kolkta-69 Complex, Right Lane No.3 Domjur, Howrah-711302 [Pan No.Aakcs 7272 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 20-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata Dated 25.03.2014. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 09.01.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred On Facts As Well As In Law In Holding That Depreciation Of Rs.6,92,40,656/- On Plants & Machinery Purchased Of Rs.40,90,09,565/- Was Allowable, Ignoring The Fact That The Plant & Machinery Acquired Was Commissioned At The End Of The Relevant Previous Year & In This Regard The Auditor In His Report Did Not Mention The Actual Date Of Installation / Commissioning Date In 3 Cd Report Field Along With The Return However, Cit(A) Accepted The Additional Evidences In This Regard In Contravention To Rule 46A.”

747/-. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to capitalize the aforesaid amount and allow depreciation on the same. The balance addition is deleted. The addition is reduced accordingly.” The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. 10. Before us both parties relied on the order of Authorities Below as favorable to them. ITA No.1292/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

747 in which it has been held that there must be some material either intrinsic in the order of assessment itself or otherwise before the CIT to order reassessment or enquiry into the matter. The Commissioner of Income Tax must have some material on the file which may compel him to pass an order under section

ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GKW LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

747/- on account of property expenses as the same is capital in nature.” 4.2. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the ld DR did not advance any argument on the subject mentioned deletion of disallowance. On the contrary, the ld AR relied on the order of the ld CIT(A). We find that the assessee had submitted

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

747/- , he held that the said payment was capitalized and not charged to revenue and hence the provisions of section 40(a)(i) could not be made applicable. Based on the aforesaid specific findings in respect of each payments, the Learned CITA held that since the incomes are not taxable in India, there is no liability on the part

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

747/- , he held that the said payment was capitalized and not charged to revenue and hence the provisions of section 40(a)(i) could not be made applicable. Based on the aforesaid specific findings in respect of each payments, the Learned CITA held that since the incomes are not taxable in India, there is no liability on the part

AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 14 of the Act. Therefore, such income is not eligible to be set off with brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.231 & 365/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 17. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted

ACIT (OSD), WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.231/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

section 14 of the Act. Therefore, such income is not eligible to be set off with brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Amrabathi Investra Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.231 & 365/Kol/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 17. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted

D.C.I.T CIR - 2,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL FISHERIES CORPORATION LTD, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi

747/-. This resulted in underassessment to the tune of Rs.2,48,04,785/-. 4. As per auditors report capital work-in-progress of Rs. 37660671/- had been capitalized during the year by transferring Rs.30406568/- on account of Engineering Equipment and Rs.7254105/- in building account. The provision as been made in the accounts for arrear depreciation of earlier years and Prior

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred

Depreciation 8,22,02,645/- 2. Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation expenses 5,48,910/- 3. Disallowance of Gift expenses 14,27,807/- 4. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 63,98,253/- 5. Disallowance of compensation 13,80,000/- 6. Revenue expenses treated as capital 3,15,12,126/- 3. The records of the assessment in the case

GUNJA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD,PURULIA vs. PCIT,, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Gunja Samabay Krishi Pcit, Asansol Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vill. Gunja, Golbera, P.S. Vs. Joypur, Dist. Purulia, Pin. 723103 Pan: Aabag 2110 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80P of the Act provides exemption to various co-operative societies including a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members from the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities. Ld. PCIT placed reliance on the decision

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

747 From the above the AO determined the loss from its silk business for Rs.1,15,17,214.00 only. The AO determined the loss from the said business without including the direct cost and indirect cost which has been incurred on ITA No.1381-82/Kol/2016 A.Ys 21-13 & 13-14 DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Lucky Godl Star

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

747 From the above the AO determined the loss from its silk business for Rs.1,15,17,214.00 only. The AO determined the loss from the said business without including the direct cost and indirect cost which has been incurred on ITA No.1381-82/Kol/2016 A.Ys 21-13 & 13-14 DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Lucky Godl Star

M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

747 and Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed :- ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 7. A similar question came up before this court in I. T.Ref. No. 5 of 1984 (CIT vs. Hasimara Industries Ltd.), where

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, BURDWAN vs. M/S. BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD., BURDWAN

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year : 2015-16

747 and Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed :- ITA No.910 & 1187/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT Cir-1/2 Bwn Vs. M/s Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 7. A similar question came up before this court in I. T.Ref. No. 5 of 1984 (CIT vs. Hasimara Industries Ltd.), where