BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

337 results for “section 68”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,928Delhi1,609Bangalore645Ahmedabad472Chennai396Kolkata337Jaipur233Hyderabad206Pune158Chandigarh148Visakhapatnam87Raipur84Indore82Surat62Lucknow60Cuttack58Nagpur41Ranchi40Rajkot38Cochin37Karnataka34Amritsar27Guwahati25Agra20SC19Jodhpur19Telangana9Patna7Varanasi7Kerala6Allahabad6Dehradun5Panaji4Calcutta3Jabalpur2Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)102Section 14A73Addition to Income57Disallowance53Depreciation37Section 14736Section 14830Deduction29Section 6828Section 80I

M/S. MATARANI VINTRADE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 15(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 343/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)

68 by a letter dt. 8-3-2017 fixing the matter on 17/3/2017. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the notice of enhancement returned back un-served with the postal remark “Unclaimed”. According to the Ld. CIT(A), second notice of hearing dated 24-03- 2017 for enhancement of addition was issued fixing the case

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

ITA 910/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 337 · Page 1 of 17

...
27
Section 115J27
Section 26327
ITAT Kolkata
03 Jan 2020
AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 of tile Act should be treated as business income. Tile principles laid down by this Court in Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 593 will apply to tile facts of tile case too." Further, the Act has also been amended to deny set off of loss for such kind of income but tile amendment is effective from

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

ITA 1187/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 of tile Act should be treated as business income. Tile principles laid down by this Court in Daulatram Rawatmull v. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 593 will apply to tile facts of tile case too." Further, the Act has also been amended to deny set off of loss for such kind of income but tile amendment is effective from

ITO, WD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BLESSING COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 250

Section 68 of the Act, per se would not be attracted, is devoid of merit and hence rejected. 11. The second argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, is that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor company as well as the genuineness of the transactions. We are not able to agree with the same

ITO, WD-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAYAJI MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)

Section 68 of the Act, per se would not be attracted, is devoid of merit and hence rejected. 11. The second argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, is that the assessee has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor company as well as the genuineness of the transactions. We are not able to agree with the same

ALISHAN STEELS (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1001/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed with respect to allowing set off against the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation

ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 999/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed with respect to allowing set off against the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation

BISWANATH AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-43, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 461/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee is such circumstances. Moreover, it is also observed that the sugar comes under essential commodities Act and West Bengal sugar dealers licensing order 2009 and accordingly it regulated by State food & supply Department and enforcement branch. Therefore, we observe that the transactions made

SRI ASHOK JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1921/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the IT Act. 5.1.4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted written submissions dated 22.02.2018 and 07.05.2018. The appellant primarily contends that as the purchase of the ITA No.1918-1922/Kol/2018 A.Y 2014-15 Page 4 impugned shares have been effected by payment of cheque .through banking transaction and as the sales are corroborated by contract notes

SMT. NITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1922/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the IT Act. 5.1.4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted written submissions dated 22.02.2018 and 07.05.2018. The appellant primarily contends that as the purchase of the ITA No.1918-1922/Kol/2018 A.Y 2014-15 Page 4 impugned shares have been effected by payment of cheque .through banking transaction and as the sales are corroborated by contract notes

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA, HUF,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1920/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the IT Act. 5.1.4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted written submissions dated 22.02.2018 and 07.05.2018. The appellant primarily contends that as the purchase of the ITA No.1918-1922/Kol/2018 A.Y 2014-15 Page 4 impugned shares have been effected by payment of cheque .through banking transaction and as the sales are corroborated by contract notes

SRI SANJEEV JHUNJHUNWALA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 36(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1919/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the IT Act. 5.1.4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted written submissions dated 22.02.2018 and 07.05.2018. The appellant primarily contends that as the purchase of the ITA No.1918-1922/Kol/2018 A.Y 2014-15 Page 4 impugned shares have been effected by payment of cheque .through banking transaction and as the sales are corroborated by contract notes

SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1918/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 77/79 Sri Arobinda Road, Ward-47(2), 3, Govt. V/S. Salkia, Howrah-711106 Place (West), Kolkata- [Pan No.Aeypj 0474 M] 700 106 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 61 Ashutosh Mukherjee Ward-36(3), Aayakar V/S. Lane, Salkia, Bhawan Poorva, Howrah-711106 Kolkata-700 106 [Pan No.Acppj 8989 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala Income Tax Officer, बनाम / (Huf), 77/79 Sri Arobinda Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. V/S. Road, Salkia, Howrah- Place (West), Kolkata- 711106 700 101 [Pan No.Aaehs 5311 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ashok Jhunjhunwala, Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 109, Netaji Subhas Road, Ward-34(2), Aayakar V/S. Goyee House, Kolkata-001 Bhawan, Poorva, [Pan No.Acppj 8990 D] Kolkata-700 107

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the IT Act. 5.1.4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted written submissions dated 22.02.2018 and 07.05.2018. The appellant primarily contends that as the purchase of the ITA No.1918-1922/Kol/2018 A.Y 2014-15 Page 4 impugned shares have been effected by payment of cheque .through banking transaction and as the sales are corroborated by contract notes

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. LALBABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.58/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(2)Section 68Section 71

68 of the I.T. Act is income under other sources. Brought forward depreciation loss which merges with the current year’s depreciation will therefore have to be allowed as a set off against unexplained income determined under section

BEEKAY STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Beekay Steel Industries Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), C/O Subash Agarwal & Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Associates, Advocates, Siddha 110, Shantipally, Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite Kolkata-700107, West Bengal 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3205A Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 68

depreciation. The statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. During the impugned financial year, the assessee had issued equity shares of face value of ₹10/- at a premium of ₹90/-to 28 subscribers. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings accepted the subscription of shares by five directors of the assessee company

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

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

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Ground no 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011- 12 are accordingly allowed”. 4. It is also observed that the issue relating to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of ERPC charges was also decided by the Tribunal dated October

M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Rustogi, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Kumar, JCIT
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, as the addition was due to retrospective adjustment and did not reflect book profit for the particular year. In addition to this, the ld. AR for the assessee has relied on the following judgments :- i)Gilt Pack Ltd., 163 Taxman 331 ( MP-HC) “It was observed that the provisions

M/S. GIRISH ROLLED PRODUCTS & ALLOYS LTD., ,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2319/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2319/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Girish Rolled Products & Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Kolkata – 69. Alloys Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee City Centre, 4Th Floor, 63/2, The Mall, Square, Kolkata – 69. Kanpur- 208001 (U.P) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 0137 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 32(2) substituted by Finance Act, 1996 w.e.f. 01.04.1997, unabsorbed depreciation allowance upto Assessment Year 1996-97 shall be added to such allowance of the Assessment Year 1997-98 and will be deemed to be the allowance of that year. Carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the Assessment Year 1997- 98 was to be allowed

M/S SATYAM SMELTERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2445/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2012-13

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]

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

68 of the Act as undisclosed cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. The Ld. AR assailing the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the assessee company