ITAT Guwahati Judgments — October 2020

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

ITA 200/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Oct 2020AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds, capital subsidy, and equity, when inextricably linked to the setting up and construction of the project, should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD., DIBRUGARH

ITA 89/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds, capital subsidy, and equity, when inextricably linked to the setting up and construction of the project, should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

ITA 94/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds, capital subsidy, and equity, when inextricably linked to the setting up and construction of the project, should be treated as a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.

MAHASHAKTI CEMENT,GUWAHATI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

ITA 212/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the fixed deposit was made to obtain credit facilities linked to the assessee's business. Therefore, the interest income could be considered business income eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

SHREE PRAKSH SINGH,GURGAON vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI

ITA 14/GTY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2020AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be initiated when the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) for a regular assessment has not expired. The AO should not 'jump the queue' by initiating reassessment when a regular assessment is still possible.

NAMITA MALLA SARKAR,AGARTALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-UDAIPUR, AGARTALA

ITA 426/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2020AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 147/148 if the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has not yet expired. Such initiation renders the proceedings bad in law.

SHREEMATI MAKANI BARUAH,GUWAHATI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), GUWAHATI

ITA 218/GTY/2019[1992-93]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2020AY 1992-93Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's intention under the scheme.

MRS. KALPANA DUTTA DAS,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

ITA 217/GTY/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2020AY 2010-11Dismissed

The ITAT allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.