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

section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 are accordingly allowed. 10. The common issue involved in ground no 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and ground no 1 of the revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 relates to the disallowance

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

section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 are accordingly allowed. 10. The common issue involved in ground no 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and ground no 1 of the revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 relates to the disallowance

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

section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 are accordingly allowed. 10. The common issue involved in ground no 3 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and ground no 1 of the revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 relates to the disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

32. So far as deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is concerned, it cannot be invoked in the present case since no part of the operations of the recipient's business, as commission agent, was carried out in India. Even though deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is triggered on the facts of this case, on account

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

32. So far as deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is concerned, it cannot be invoked in the present case since no part of the operations of the recipient's business, as commission agent, was carried out in India. Even though deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is triggered on the facts of this case, on account

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

32. So far as deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is concerned, it cannot be invoked in the present case since no part of the operations of the recipient’s business, as commission agent, was carried out in India. Even though deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is triggered on the facts of this case, on account

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

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 32(1

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of the assessee in A

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 32(1

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 32(1

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 32(1

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

32. So far as deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is concerned, it cannot be invoked in the present case since no part of the operations of the recipient's business, as commission agent, was carried out in India. Even though deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is triggered on the facts of this case, on account

ACIT, CIR-2, TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LUX INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

32. So far as deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is concerned, it cannot be invoked in the present case since no part of the operations of the recipient's business, as commission agent, was carried out in India. Even though deeming fiction under section 9(1)(i) is triggered on the facts of this case, on account

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Disallowance of balance portion of additional depreciation: Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2011-12 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing business. Some of such plant and machinery were

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Disallowance of balance portion of additional depreciation: Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2011-12 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing business. Some of such plant and machinery were

UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Disallowance of balance portion of additional depreciation: Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2011-12 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing business. Some of such plant and machinery were

UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1766/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2142 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1767/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Universal Cables Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2143/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata -Vs- Universal Cables Ltd. [Pan: Aaacu 3547 P] (Appellant) (Respondent

Disallowance of balance portion of additional depreciation: Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1 for assessment year 2011-12 The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 purchased and installed new plant and machinery for its manufacturing business. Some of such plant and machinery were

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.2109/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata………………………………………….……Appellant Vs. M/S National Engineering Industrial Ltd…..……..........……...…..…..Respondent 11Th Floor, Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Bbd Bagh, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacn9969L] Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca & Shri Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of Balance Additional Depreciation On The Assets Which Were Put To Use In Earlier Year. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add To Delete, Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing..” 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Time-Barred By 18 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of The Said Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein Reasons For The Delay In Filing This Appeal Have Been Mentioned. Considering The Above Reasons, We Condone The Delay.

section 32(1), claimed depreciation @50% of additional depreciation i.e. @10% instead of 20% of the actual cost. The assessee claimed the remaining 10% additional depreciation during the next financial year i.e. F.Y 2014-15 relevant to A.Y 2015-16. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed

SECOND VIVEKANANDA BRIDGE TOLLYWAYCO.PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13 Second Vivekananda V/S. Dcit, Circle-2(2), Bridge Tollway Co. Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., Block Gp, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Salt Lake Electronics Kolkata-69 Complex, Kolkata-91 [Pan No.Aahcs 8573 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Rudra, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 21-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 11-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Calls Into Question The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 04.11.2016 Passed In Case No.1221/Cit(A)-1/C-2(2)/2015-16 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing Its Depreciation Claimed Of ₹41,99,22,054 In Respect Of Licence To Collect The Toll Revenue Of The Second Vivekananda Bridge (Treated As The Relevant Intangible Asset) & Disallowing Leave Encashment Provision Of ₹1,84,562/- U/S 43B(F) In Assessment Order Dated 11.05.2015, Involving Proceeding U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short As ‘The Act’. 2. We Come To Former Issue Of Depreciation Disallowance In Respect Of Assessee’S Licence To Collect Toll Charges On The Second Vivekananda Bridge.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The A.O held that it was not be eligible for claiming Depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets, and disallowed

BEEYU OVERSEAS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIR.4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

section 32(1)(iii).This amendment also strengthens the claim that now only detail for ‘block of assets’ has to be maintained and not separately for each asset (para 32).” 22. So, we rely on the ratio decidendi of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Oswal Agro Mills Ld (supra) where the assessee in that