Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 ... vs Naba Dighanta Water Management Limited

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2038 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 ... vs Naba Dighanta Water Management Limited on 18 March, 2026

Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
OD 2


                                ORDER SHEET
                                ITAT/198/2025
                        IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
                                ORIGINAL SIDE


            PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA
                                  VS
               NABA DIGHANTA WATER MANAGEMENT LIMITED


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
                     AND
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
  Date: 18th March, 2026.



                                                                       Appearance:
                                                             Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
                                                    Mr. Abhishek Kr. Agrahari, Adv.
                                                                 ...for the appellant

                                                  Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv.
                                                              Ms. Sruti Datta, Adv.
                                                            Ms. Sakshi Singhi, Adv.
                                                               ...for the respondent

The Court: Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 232 days and explains the reason for such delay. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee vehemently opposes such submission made by the appellant.

2

There is a delay of 232 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed.

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law for consideration.

"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred substantially in law in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 13,47,90,735/- under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the proposition of law that depreciation of asset can be allowed only when the assessee made capital expenditure for acquiring the asset?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred substantially in law in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 13,47,90,735/-under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring that the asset has not been qualified as asset within the purview of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and there was no transfer of asset within the scope of BOT agreement till 30 years from the date of agreement, but allowing utilization of the assets by the assessee over the said period?"

The appellant shall file requisite number of informal paper books prepared out of Court including therein all relevant materials used before the learned Court below within ten weeks from date and serve copies thereof upon the learned advocate for the respondent.

3

Settlement of index and all other formalities are dispensed with. Since the respondent is represented, service of notice of appeal stands dispensed with.

Let the matter be listed twelve weeks hence. IA No.GA/2/2026 is disposed of.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) Sp/