Calcutta High Court
C.I.T. Kolkata Iv vs Mcleod Russel (India) Ltd on 6 April, 2015
Author: Girish Chandra Gupta
Bench: Girish Chandra Gupta
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax)
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITA No. 308 of 2005
C.I.T. KOLKATA IV
Versus
MCLEOD RUSSEL (INDIA) LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 6th April, 2015.
Mr. A.G. Gutgutia,Adv. for Appellant
Mr.Siddhartha Das, Adv. Mr. Asim Chowdhury, Adv. for Respondent
The Court : The appeal was presented on 27.7. 2005 which was taken up for hearing in the presence of the learned Advocate appearing for the assessee after notice. The following two questions have been suggested by the revenue.
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow 100% depreciation of Vivro Fluid Bed Drver, thereby disregarding the concurrent finding from the lower authorities to the effect that 25% of depreciation was allowable ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under 80 HHC will have to be taken at gross figure inclusive of brokerage and commission allowed to the foreign agent and not at the net figure of inward remittance following its earlier order for assessment year 199293?"2
There is a consensus between the learned Advocates for the parties that both the questions are now covered by an earlier judgment of this Court to which one of us (Girish Chandra Gupta, J.) was a party in the case of the assessee itself reported in (2014) 361 ITR 663 (Kol). In that view of the matter, question No.1 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. Question No.2 is answered in the negative in favour of the revenue.
The appeal is thus disposed of.
(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) km