Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 ... vs Naba Dighanta Water Management Limited
2026 Latest Caselaw 2036 Cal/2

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.

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.

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/