WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

disallowance made by the AO on account of its claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A), the following submissions were made by the assessee in support of its claim for additional depreciation under

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

disallowance made by the AO on account of its claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A), the following submissions were made by the assessee in support of its claim for additional depreciation under

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed while both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A. No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ...........................Appellant Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 I.T.A. No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle 2(2) Kolkata,...................…………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ....................Respondent Bidyut Bhawan, Sector – Ii, Block Dj, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaacw6953H] Appearances By: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am These Four Appeals, Two Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 871 & 872/Kol/2015 & Two Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 1001 & 1002/Kol/2015, Are Cross-Appeals Which Are Directed Against Two

disallowance made by the AO on account of its claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A), the following submissions were made by the assessee in support of its claim for additional depreciation under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- V (I), KOLKATA vs. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED, BIRLA BUILDING

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue is dismissed, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee for both the years

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) by considering all investments including investments in subsidiary companies which yielded dividend income. This Ground of the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed, whereas, the cross-objection of the assessee on this issue is hereby dismissed.” 4.3 In this regard one of the points in the cross objection is regarding absence

ITO, WD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAVLON PROPERTIES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1458/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O. Ward 1(3) Kolkata .............................…………………………......................Appellant Room No. 11A, 4Th Floor, Aayakr Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 M/S. Ravlon Properties (P) Ltd.……………………………………………….........Respondent 35, C.R. Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 12. [Pan: Aaccr3164P] Appearances By: Shri P.B. Pramanick, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 06, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 1, Kolkata Dated 26.02.2014 On The Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Deleting Addition Of Rs. 1,91,90,538/- On Undisclosed Income Of The Assessee By Admitting Fresh Evidences From The Assessee In Contravention To Rule 46A Of The I.T. Rules & Without Giving A Finding As To What Prevented The Taxpayer To Adduce Evidences Before The Assessing Officer. Ii. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Deleting Disallowance Of Rs. 2,24,877/- U/S 14A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Read With Rule 8D Without Considering The Fact That Nexus Between The Interest Earned & Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Could Not Be Established By The Assessee Before The Assessing Officer. Moreover, The Ld.

disallowance made by the AO under section 14A read with Rule 8D was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A), it was pointed out by the assessee that the entire investment in shares was made by the assessee out of its own fund

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed in computation of income. It is seen that the appellant has claimed dividend income as exempt income under section 10(34) of the Income tax Act and fees for technical services received from UAR as exempt under DTAA. So far as expenditure for dividend income is concerned I have already discussed and decided the issue. Regarding expenses for earning

DIPAK KUMAR DEY,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, KOLKATA-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

disallowed the expenditure under the section. Omission to do so by the assessing officer was held as, resulting in the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, he exercised his powers u/s 263 of the Act, and revised the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) and gave specific directions to the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CHEVIOT COMPANY LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1500/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Appellant Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Room No. 20, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/S. Cheviot Company Limited,.................Respondent 9Th Floor, Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Appearances By: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 12Th , 2023 O R D E R

disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.55,57,150/- as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. INTEGRATED COAL MINING LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

150 - Less: Change in carrying value of current investment (3,30,924) - ------------------- ---------------- 92,08,87,174 38,46,97,320 ------------------- ---------------- 2.2. Out of the aforesaid investments, the assessee had earned dividend only from CESC Ltd and from UTI Mutual fund which was purchased and sold during the year. The assessee voluntarily disallowed

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

disallowance of Firm Services expenditure payment amounting to ₹150,046,130/ ₹150,046,130/-.” 19. The ld. D/R, could not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the issue is uld not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the issue is uld not controvert the submissions of the assessee that the issue is covered by this above referred order

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-13(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

AWAS DEVCON PVT. LTD. ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-14(4), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring total income at ₹10,81,150/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee along

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

section 14A amounting to Rs.15,52,365/-. 8. That the department craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 5. Facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a multi-specialty hospital providing latest generation diagnostic and treatment facilities. It is jointly promoted

D.C.I.T,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S APOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

section 14A amounting to Rs.15,52,365/-. 8. That the department craves leave to add to and/or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or hearing of this appeal.” 5. Facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee is a multi-specialty hospital providing latest generation diagnostic and treatment facilities. It is jointly promoted

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.

150/- but no tax was deducted on the sum u/s 194I of the Income Tax Act. The assessee company had claimed the sum as business expenditure. Accordingly to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, the sold expenditure is not allowable. 8 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. On the basis

DCIT,CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals being ITA Nos

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

disallowed. As per the consistent accounting policy followed by the appellant, investments which are not trading assets are carried at cost. However, in view of the resolution adopted by the Board at its I.T.A. Nos. 1376, 1377, 1582 & 1531/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Page 13 of 20 meeing

SHALINI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance of Rs.99,95,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F to the extent of Rs.22,01,396/-. Still aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused

ACIT, CIR-3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES,, SIKKIM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh) Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed the claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who examined the manufacturing process and the relevant evidence and came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process whereas finished product is distinct from raw material and allowed the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC by holding as under