M/S. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle-12, Kolkata

ITAT/75/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. -Versus- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 6[th] June, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the assessee underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity)is directed against the order dated 11[th] December, 2009 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, in ITATNo.820/Kol/2008 and cross-objection No.48/Kol/2008 by the assesseefor the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee has raised for thefollowing substantial questions of law for consideration: i)Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in law in not deciding thatthe assessee was entitled to get deduction under Section 80IA(1) read with Section 80IA(2) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for ten consecutive assessmentyears i.e., nine subsequent consecutive years afterthe initial Assessment Year 2004-05 in whichdeduction was allowed for the first time? ii)Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Kolkata ought not to reject the cross-objections filed by the Assessee for the AssessmentYear 2005-06? iii)Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in restoring theorder of the Assessing Officer in applying theprovisions of the second proviso to Section 32(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 on block of assets on which100% depreciation has been prescribed and thusdisallowing 50% depreciation on “Purely TemporaryErections” used for less than 180 days?iv) Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in not treating the100% depreciation as revenue expense and in wronglyapplying the provisions of Section 32(1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 on “Purely Temporary Erections”used for less than 180 days? v)Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in upholding theaddition of Rs.21,376/- made by the AssessingOfficer u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 onaccount of Employees contribution to ESI when thesame is allowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the said section supersedes section36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in upholding theaddition of Rs.21,376/- made by the AssessingOfficer u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 onaccount of Employees contribution to ESI when thesame is allowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act,1961 as the said section supersedes section36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? vi)Whether, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in deciding that forcomputing the due date as per explanation to section36(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no grace periodis allowed for the deposit of ESI contributionignoring the various High Court Judgments?“A” Bench, Kolkata erred in Law in deciding that forcomputing the due date as per explanation to section36(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no grace periodis allowed for the deposit of ESI contributionignoring the various High Court Judgments? This appeal was presented on 2[nd] April, 2010 andthereafter no steps have been taken to move the appeal foradmission. We are also informed that no stay application had beenfiled by the appellant/assessee. On going through the materials and papers, we find thatthe matter which was the subject-matter for consideration beforethe tribunal was entirely factual and the tribunal, after notingthe earlier decision on the same point, has allowed the appealfiled by the revenue. Thus, we find that there is no question of 4 law much less substantial question of law arising forconsideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/75/2010) stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) As/S.Das