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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. M/S. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

section 197(2). Other Expenses-Material consumed, labour Charge etc. 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in deleting Construction expenses, labour charges/Salary, store and spare expenses, other direct expenses, other expenses such as office expenses, travel & conveyance etc. disallowed expenses of Rs.3,62,37,711/­ as being based on conjectures & surmises. In doing

MRINAL DAS,BAKSA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. For that the learned CIT (A) is not justified in assessing business income @15% of total turnover by observing telescope due to violation of sec. 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) is as much as in case of presumptive scheme same does not apply. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds

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

2) CIT v. Reaiest Builders and Services: 307 ITR 202 (SC) (3) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) (4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers

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

2) CIT v. Reaiest Builders and Services: 307 ITR 202 (SC) (3) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) (4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers

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 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.,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