TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata in I.T. (SS) No. 47 to 53/Kol/2014 & 256/Kol/2015 & 66/Kol/2016 & I.T. (SS) No. 54 to 60/Kol/2014 & 313/Kol/2015 & 124/Kol/2016 both relating to the Assessment Year 2003-2004 to 2011-2012 respectively. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that in the proceeding under Section 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 addition can be made only on evidence found in search in respect of assessment which have become final that is unabated assessment ? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(India) Limited Vs. CIT (2006) reported in 157 Taxman 1 is applicable only to the Assessing Officer and did not impinge the power of the DRP ? g. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that that receipts on account of sale of CER (Certified Emission Reduction)/Carbon Credits is capital receipt not chargeable to tax ? h. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that no disallowance on account of interest expenses would be made under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rule, 1962 as the assessee was having capital and reeve fund more than the amount of investment which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal has erred in law in holding that assessee is entitled to carry forward the balance additional depreciation of Rs.50,50,598/- in the Assessment Year 2011-2012 which was not claimed in the earlier Assessment Year 2011-2012 since the asset was put to used for less than 180 days in the previous year 2009-2010 ? m. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case conclusion arrived that by the Learned Tribunal in granting the aforesaid relief to the Assessee, is perverse ? We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standing Counsel along with Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the respondent. So far as sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assistant Commissioner of Income tax [2021] 433 ITR 61(Mad) which was rendered following various decisions and also taking note of Section 115 BBG of the Act, which has introduced by Finance Act 2017 with effect from April 1, 2018. Accordingly, question No. g is not admitted. So far as substantial questions of law h & i are concerned, those are admitted. So far as substantial question of law no. j is concerned, it is not admitted as it is covered in the light of the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. [2022] 286 Taxman 673(Cal). So far as substantial question of law no. k is concerned, on perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal we find that there is no factual position he....