Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – 4, Kolkata v. M/S. V2 Retail Limited

OD – 9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/847/2018)InITAT/102/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – 4,KOLKATAVS.M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : February 2, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. Madhu Jana, Adv.… for the appellantMr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv.Mr. Rites Goel, Adv...for the respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed againstthe order dated 23[rd] August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1260/Kol/2015 forthe assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal was justified in law to allow the claimof the assessee by relying upon the decision of CIT –vs-Agarwal Transformer Private Limited Reported in (2002) 258ITR 251 Raj. which is distinguishable both in fact and inlaw?the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to allow the claimof the assessee by relying upon the decision of CIT –vs-Agarwal Transformer Private Limited Reported in (2002) 258ITR 251 Raj. which is distinguishable both in fact and inlaw? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal was justified in law in deletion ofaddition made to the tune of Rs. 1,66,96,747/- on theground that the depreciation at 80% should be allowed to anelectric generator since falling in the category of a renewableenergy device the same is being eligible for enhanced rate ofdepreciation under Section 32(1) of the said Act?the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in deletion ofaddition made to the tune of Rs. 1,66,96,747/- on theground that the depreciation at 80% should be allowed to anelectric generator since falling in the category of a renewableenergy device the same is being eligible for enhanced rate ofdepreciation under Section 32(1) of the said Act? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal was justified in law to hold that theadditional depreciation under Section 32(1) (iia) read withProviso (B) is allowable to the assessee despite the fact thatProviso (B) to 32(1) (iia) bars deduction under the saidSection to any plant and machinery installed in any officepremises or any residential accommodation includingaccommodation in the nature of Guest House?the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to hold that theadditional depreciation under Section 32(1) (iia) read withProviso (B) is allowable to the assessee despite the fact thatProviso (B) to 32(1) (iia) bars deduction under the saidSection to any plant and machinery installed in any officepremises or any residential accommodation includingaccommodation in the nature of Guest House? We have heard Mr. Madhu Jana, learned standing counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. Saurabh Bagara duly assisted by Mr.Pranav Sharma and Mr. Rite Goel, learned advocates for therespondent/assessee. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that We have heard Mr. Madhu Jana, learned standing counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. Saurabh Bagara duly assisted by Mr.Pranav Sharma and Mr. Rite Goel, learned advocates for therespondent/assessee. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the revenue cannot pursue this appeal on the ground of low tax effect.Learned counsel for the appellant does not have specificinstructions who seeks to pursue the appeal by referring to certaindetail which has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the stay petition.However, we find from paragraph 9 of the stay petition that therevenue itself has stated that the tax effect reported in the instantcase is at Rs.50,09,024/-. If this is the statement which has gone onrecord and signed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 4,Kolkata, the revenue cannot wriggle out of the same. That apart, wehave perused the assessment order dated 21.01.2014 under Section147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act and in the computation ofincome and tax appended to the assessment order, the net taxpayable is Rs.63,36,753/-. This amount tallies with the amountmentioned in the order dated Commissioner of Income Tax – 4,Kolkata dated 27.07.2015. Thus, we are of the clear view that theappeal cannot be pursued by the revenue on the ground of low taxeffect. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. The substantial questions of law are left open. Consequently the stay application stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)