DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

disallowed the assessee’s additional depreciation claim @ 10% u/s 32(1)(iia) since it had put its corresponding fixed assets to use in earlier assessment year(s) than installation thereof in the relevant previous year only Mr. Shankar refers to this tribunal’s recent decision in Welspun Corporation vs. DCIT and vice versa ITA No.5370 & 5722/Mum/2015 dated 13.12.2019 accepting

WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10)

disallowances were made and thereafter the AO assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.2,12,13,110/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that

DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowances were made and thereafter the AO assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.2,12,13,110/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that

JCIT (OSD), CIR- 11(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

24 (twenty four) days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The revenue has filed a petition for condonation stating the reasons for the said delay. After perusing the same, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

iia) to sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act. The facts of the present are similar to the decision supra relied on by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT and another vs. Rittal India Private Lid supra

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

disallowed by the AO. 9. The AO adopted the status of the assessee as AOP in terms of the provision of section 2(31) r.w.s. 2(7) of the Act. The AO was given the following findings with regard to the activities of the society as the nature excess income over the expenditure. “Observation (a) Assessee is solely engaged

DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MCNALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

iia) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:-“ “4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,51,944/- claimed by the assessee as additional depreciation without increasing in installed capacity

MC NALLY SAYAJI ENGINEERING LIMITED,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 1,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

iia) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following ground:-“ “4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,51,944/- claimed by the assessee as additional depreciation without increasing in installed capacity

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the Finance Act, 2015 has made this provisions w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and consequently the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction for AY 2014-15 of Rs. 60,66,115/-. 14. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal by referring to the provision of Section

M/S. DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowed the deduction on the ground that the Finance Act, 2015 has made this provisions w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and consequently the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction for AY 2014-15 of Rs. 60,66,115/-. 14. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal by referring to the provision of Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset: .....” (Emphasis is ours) 11. We may only indicate that during the course of the arguments, our attention was drawn to the "Memorandum Explaining the provisions in Financial Bill, 2015", whereby, the aforementioned amendment was brought about. 11.1. The relevant part

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S INTEGRATED COAL MINING LTD, KOLKATA

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

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

Section 115JB of the IT Act by deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) erred in law in holding that additional depreciation of rs.1,30,493/- should be allowed by treating the coal mining as production of coal. 24. Regarding the Ground nos’-1 & 2 of Revenue’s appeal

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

24,672/- Total Rs. 76,14,772/- The assessee had sold the entire mutual funds debt schemes amounting to Rs. 705.16 lacs. during the year under appeal. The assessee had sufficient own funds which is quite evident from the perusal of the balance sheet and accordingly it could be safely concluded that all the investments were made only

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

24,672/- Total Rs. 76,14,772/- The assessee had sold the entire mutual funds debt schemes amounting to Rs. 705.16 lacs. during the year under appeal. The assessee had sufficient own funds which is quite evident from the perusal of the balance sheet and accordingly it could be safely concluded that all the investments were made only

DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos.472 & 474 & C.O Nos.64 & 66/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd. 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacc0457C (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

disallowed the claim of the appellant holding that the assets on which additional depreciation is claimed by the assessee was neither new nor brought into existence in the year under consideration. 2. However, the Ld. ARs for the appellant submitted that the Act nowhere specifies the period in which such claim of additional depreciation shall be allowed