GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,99,14,790/- 3,26,82,790/- 27,68,000/- 2017-18 1,16,25,711/- 1,29,13,

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

29. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Dinesh Kumar Goel (supra). Further we notice that similar issue of late payment charges to be realised on cash basis due to its high uncertainity of recovery was decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

29. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Dinesh Kumar Goel (supra). Further we notice that similar issue of late payment charges to be realised on cash basis due to its high uncertainity of recovery was decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2.—For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 13. A perusal of this section would indicate that where a search has been conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act upon the assessee, then the assessment

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2.—For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 13. A perusal of this section would indicate that where a search has been conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act upon the assessee, then the assessment

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,TRIPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even