Iii)Whether The Ld. Tribunal Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Madeu/S.36(I)(Va) R.w.s. 2(24)(X) Of The Act As The Payment Of Employee’scontribution Is v. T.s. Sivagnanam, J

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/258/2022IA NO: GA/2/2022PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 KOLKATAVS.M/s. RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 8 FEBRUARY, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for appellantMr. S.M. Surana, Adv.Ms. Sapna Das, Adv.Mr. S. Das, Adv.…for respondent The Court : - Heard learned Counsel for either side. This appeal filed by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 13[th] March, 2020 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘A’ Bench Kolkata in ITA No.113/Kol/2017, CO No.16/Kol/2017, A/o ITA 113/Kol/2017 relating to Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration:- i)WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in deleting thedisallowance of 50% of additional depreciation as 50% of additionaldepreciation was claimed in preceding assessment year on new plant andmachinery which was put to use for less than 180 days, ignoring thereasoned order of the A.O. and relying on the assessee’s submission ?ii)WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that forex lossis allowance as expenditure under section 37 of the Act, overlooking thecontractual nature of forex transactions as enumerated in provision ofsection 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? iii)Whether the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition madeu/s.36(i)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act as the payment of Employee’sContribution is not covered u/s 43B of the Act ? So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned identical issue wasdecided in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-2011 in ITAT No. 49 of2020 dated 27.7.2020. Following the said decision the substantial question of law no. 1is answered against the revenue. So far as the second substantial question of law isconcerned we note that the learned Tribunal had rightly took note of the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., [312 ITR 254(SC)] and granted relief to the assessee. The said order cannot be faulted andaccordingly substantial question of law No. 2 is answered against the revenue. So far asthe third substantial question of law is concerned the said issue has to be answered infavour of the revenue and against the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in CIT Vs. Checkmate Services P. Ltd.; [448 ITR 518 (SC)]. Thus followingthe above decision the substantial question of law no. 3 is answered in favour of therevenue. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are answered against the revenue and substantial question of law No. 3 isanswered in favour of the revenue. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)