9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction under section 153C of the Act. Thus, we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration on this issue. Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) on mining of coal - Tribunal had taken note of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. G. S. Atwal Company [ 2001 (2) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] for the proposition that mining of coal is production - HELD THAT:- Applying the said decision the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee. This issue has also been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. [ 2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that extraction and processing of mineral ore amounts to production ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer for a fresh decision. - IA No.GA 2 of 2017 (Old No.GA 3519 of 2017) In ITAT 343 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-12-2021 - THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. for the appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr., Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. for the respondent ORDER The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act in brevity) is directed against the order dated 9th November, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal ) in ITA No.920-923/Kol/2013 for the assessment Year 2007-08 to 2010-2011 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Tribunal for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Out of the four assessment years, the assessment for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are below tax effect. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed in so far as the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the ground of low tax effect. This leaves us to decide the case of the department for the remaining two assessment years, namely, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The first substantial question which has been raised before us is with regard to the cancellation of the assessment framed under Section 153C of the Act. We have carefully perused the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the materials which were made available before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the Tribunal deleting the addition made under Section 14A for the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 29.12.2011 held that the assessee company during the year was having investment of ₹ 1,04,00,504/- income which would not form part of the total income of the assessee and that the interest has also been paid during the year. Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 5,97,332/- was disallowed applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer is bereft of particulars and devoid of reasons. The CIT(A) before whom the assessee challenged the said finding while dealing with ground no.(a) has extensively referred to the submission made by the assessee and has, in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, we are of the view that the third issue which arises for only one assessment year, namely, 2010-11 requires to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. In the result, we find that question no. (a) as raised above does not arise for consideration in this appeal as we find that the entire matter is factual. So far as the substantial question law no.(b) is concerned, the same is answered against the revenue and so far as the substantial question no.(c) is concerned, the same is left open and the findings rendered by the Tribunal as well as the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the issue with regard to the addition under Section 14A after taking note of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
