https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463033 The ITAT Kolkata upheld the CIT(A)'s orders in favor of the assessee on all issues. It rejected the department's appeal regarding deduction under section 80IA for revenue from toilet blocks and footbridges, relying on a prior ITAT ruling for AY 2005-06 in the assessee's own case. The addition for depreciation was disallowed by the AO treating holdings as permanent structures, but CIT(A) allowed full depreciation; the ITAT found no merit in the department's appeal due to lack of contrary evidence and consistency with earlier decisions. On the TDS deduction issue under sections 194C/194I, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for lower TDS at 2%, supported by precedent involving the assessee's sister concern. The ITAT found no grounds to interfere with CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the department's appeal entirely. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2025 22:57:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463033 The ITAT Kolkata upheld the CIT(A)'s orders in favor of the assessee on all issues. It rejected the department's appeal regarding deduction under section 80IA for revenue from toilet blocks and footbridges, relying on a prior ITAT ruling for AY 2005-06 in the assessee's own case. The addition for depreciation was disallowed by the AO treating holdings as permanent structures, but CIT(A) allowed full depreciation; the ITAT found no merit in the department's appeal due to lack of contrary evidence and consistency with earlier decisions. On the TDS deduction issue under sections 194C/194I, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for lower TDS at 2%, supported by precedent involving the assessee's sister concern. The ITAT found no grounds to interfere with CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the department's appeal entirely. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463033