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 11(5) of the Act is retrospective in operation/clarificatory and, therefore, not allowable. 3. Facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “The assessee is a charitable trust having

M/S GOLD TOUCH JEWELLERY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

section 80G(2)(a ) even prior to its amendment. Therefore, the assessee's claim was rightly rejected. There is no ambiguity in the facts of the case that no sum has been paid by assessee to the karigars. Thus in our considered view in the given facts & circumstances the question of invoking the provision of u/s 194C

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 14A and rule 8D, hence the\naddition be deleted.\n3. The CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law, as well as in fact by not considering the\nsubmission of the applicant about the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii)\namount of expenditure related to earning of the exempt income for\n₹16,29,044 only and rather affirming the amount

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act for which AO had not obtained the proof of receipts of donation and certificate of the nine donees; (ii) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect commission paid to the Managing Director/Directors of the assessee company for non- deduction of tax at source as well as non-compliance of section

M/S. PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

section 8D of the Rules, at ₹7,50,50,000/- by applying the rate of 1% on the average investments. The ld. Dispute Resolution Panel in its direction vide order dated 30.06.2024, upheld the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. 025. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we note that there is no exempt

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R. PIYARELALL IMPORT & EXPORT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

depreciation on non- tangible asset is allowable under s. 32(1)(ii) implying that software which is an intangible asset can also be a capital asset and the same amounts to capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal examined is as to whether the treatment of purchase of software amounting to Rs. 33,14,298 is a capital expenditure

CHATTERJEE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

Depreciation of Rs.10,97,669 which was admissible as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Income Tax Rules, 1962. 6) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the deduction of Rs.4,90,000 claimed by the Appellant Assessee company under section 80G

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section for depreciation is only for business entity and the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for taxing the receipt and the denial of depreciation exposes the non-application of mind of the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issues before him. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has got the registration

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section for depreciation is only for business entity and the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for taxing the receipt and the denial of depreciation exposes the non-application of mind of the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issues before him. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has got the registration

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section for depreciation is only for business entity and the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) for taxing the receipt and the denial of depreciation exposes the non-application of mind of the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issues before him. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has got the registration

BRAJESWARI RADHARAMAN INTERGENERATIONS HUMANITARIAN TRUST.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

section. ii. Ratio of expenditure on establishment and administration to expenditure on objects of the trusts is high. iii. Large amount deemed to have been applied for charitable or religious purpose.” 2 A.Y. 2020-21 Brajeswari Radharaman Intergenerations Humanitarian Trust (Bright) 3. Later on notice u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued upon

COMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL WORK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Girish Agrawal

depreciation was claimed as per the provision of Section 32 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) should have considered that the assessee-society is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act & obtained approval u/s. 80G

BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPT, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

depreciation not allowed on the ground that total corpus fund amounting to Rs. 2,45,29,550/- which had been proved to be bogus donation and nothing but mere accommodation entries had been declared fully spent on building and other fixed assets. The income of the assessee has been computed and penalty notice

DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ATHA MINES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2012-13

80G Rs.15,000/- Rs. 4,95,775/- (-) Rs.14,90,79.,794/- Less :Depreciation as per IT Rules Rs.4,19,309/- Dividend exempt u/s 10(34) Rs.1,54,723/- Rs. 5,74,032/- (-) Rs.14,96,53,826/- Disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) Rs.5,56,746/- (-) Rs.14,90,97,080/- Book profit Rs.,15,04,24,431/- Additional income offered for Taxation

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

depreciation and\nother capital expenditure mentioned is varied when such liability\ncrystalises in the year of payment. Hence, the mark-to-market loss\nbeing only a notional loss for the purpose of the books of account of the\nassessee and no crystallization of such loss having been occurred\nduring the year, such loss has rightly been disallowed

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED ,PASHCHIM BARDHAMAN vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

section 32(1)(iia) alsois to be applied) and goes into ‘manufacture or production’ of “article or thing” are to be established with hard documents. There are not brought to record. The additional depreciation is also a business expense and the onus is on assessee to prove before Assessing Officer the eligibility as prescribed in law. This clearly

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED ,PASHCHIM BARDHAMAN vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

section 32(1)(iia) alsois to be applied) and goes into ‘manufacture or production’ of “article or thing” are to be established with hard documents. There are not brought to record. The additional depreciation is also a business expense and the onus is on assessee to prove before Assessing Officer the eligibility as prescribed in law. This clearly

ARUNASHIS SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, both the cross appeals as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 258/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. I.T.A. No. 176/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer..………………………………………………………….............................Appellant Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………...........................Respondent 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 176/Kol/2015) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar................................…………………………………..............................Appellant 16/M, Satish Ch. Ghosh Lane, Mahesh, Serampore, Hooghly – 712 202. [Pan : Cbdps 2458 G] Income Tax Officer..…………………………………………………………........................Respondent Ward No. 1(3), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 209, G.T. Road, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri K.M. Roy, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 08, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 14, 2018

Depreciation 0 1,08,650 Net Profit 4,15,475 9,15,475 4 I.T.A. Nos. 258 & 176/Kol/2015 & C.O. No. 19/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunashis Sarkar 3. The A.O. also noted that there was a remarkable difference in the balance sheet figures as well as the deductions claimed by the assessee under Chapter VIA as under: Item Return filed