Ita/130/2018 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kol 3 - Kol v. Oberoi Hotels Private Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/130/2018PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL 3 - KOLVS.OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LTD. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK[[th]] Date : 4[[th]] July, 2022. Appearance:Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for appellantMs. Akshara Shukla, Adv.…for respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) isdirected against the order dated 20[th] November, 2015 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 230,233, 1030 & 1041/Kol/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09.The Revenue has suggested the following substantialquestions of law for consideration :- 1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in holding thatno disallowances can be made under Section 14A of theIncome Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules 1962, in case of the assessee relating to assessmentsyear 2007-08 and 2008-09 ? 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in allowing thedepreciation of Rs.10,76,681/- claimed by the assesseeon Naila Fort Guest House at Jaipur which was ceasedto be used for official purpose by disregarding thatthe assessee itself offered the said amount ofRs.10,76,681/- for addition to its total income byits letter dated 17.11.2009 for the assessment year2007-08? 3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in allowingdepreciation of Rs.9,71,476/- claimed by the assesseeon Naila Fort guest House at Jaipur which was ceasedto be used for official purpose for the assessmentyear 2008-09?case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in allowingdepreciation of Rs.9,71,476/- claimed by the assesseeon Naila Fort guest House at Jaipur which was ceasedto be used for official purpose for the assessmentyear 2008-09? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standingCounsel for the appellant/revenue and Ms. Akshara Shukla, learnedAdvocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. The learned StandingCounsel has written instruction from the department vide letter dated7.6.2022 stating that tax effect involved in this appeal is less thanthe threshold limit fixed by the CBDT vide Circular dated 8[th] August,2019 and, therefore, instruction has been given to withdraw this appeal.Said instruction is placed on record. Accordingly appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Substantial questions of law, as suggested are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.) Pkd/GH.