Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata v. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0731-110]

Citation 2019-LL-0731-110
Appellant Name Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata
Respondent Name Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 31/07/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags temporary structure • depreciation at higher rate • depreciation on temporary structure
Bot Summary: This finding of fact has not been challenged by the revenue in appeal or it remains untouched by any superior Court. Mr. Bhowmick, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, could not show us any case made out by his client in the subject assessment year that there was any technological advancement or modification in the temporary structure in such a manner so as to classify it as a permanent one. In those circumstances, the issue as to whether the subject structure was temporary or permanent in the assessment year in question has become res judicata. We find no infirmity in the impugned order of the tribunal holding that it was so and allowing the respondent assessee 100 depreciation. This appeal is dismissed answering the questions framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. RE: ITA No.183 of 2018 In view of our judgment and order delivered above in the appeal, the instant appeal ITA 183 of 2018 is also dismissed answering the questions framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.


ITA No.55 of 2018 With ITA No.183 of 2018 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA Versus M/S. VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 31st July, 2019. Appearance: Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. J.P. Khaitan Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. RE: ITA No.55 of 2018 Court : On 17th May, 2018 this appeal was admitted to be heard on following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether Tribunal in coming to its finding that hoarding structures of assessee, which is advertising company, qualify for depreciation at rate 100% by treating these hoardings to be temporary structures was perverse, having regard to fact that there is no disclosure in order under appeal as regards quality of structures and material used for same ? (ii) Whether Tribunal had properly appreciated scope of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in coming to its finding that exercise of such power in instant case was not proper ? On examination of impugned order of tribunal dated 10th August, 2016, we find that its finding that subject structure of 2 respondent was temporary and not permanent was substantially derived from findings of tribunal in respect of same respondent for earlier assessment years. This finding of fact has not been challenged by revenue in appeal or it remains untouched by any superior Court. Mr. Bhowmick, learned advocate appearing for appellant, could not show us any case made out by his client in subject assessment year that there was any technological advancement or modification in temporary structure in such manner so as to classify it as permanent one. In those circumstances, issue as to whether subject structure was temporary or permanent in assessment year in question has become res judicata. Hence, we find no infirmity in impugned order of tribunal holding that it was so and allowing respondent assessee 100% depreciation. This appeal (ITA 55 of 2018) is dismissed answering questions framed in favour of assessee and against revenue. RE: ITA No.183 of 2018 In view of our judgment and order delivered above in appeal (ITA 55 of 2018), instant appeal ITA 183 of 2018 is also dismissed answering questions framed in favour of assessee and against revenue. (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) cs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata v. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd
Report Error