THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

gains as specified in Sub-section (3). In order to claim such benefit the following conditions are to be satisfied:- a) The benefit is available to an undertaking or enterprise; b) Such undertaking or enterprise begins to manufacture or produce any article of thing not being any article or thing specified in respect to the Thirteen Schedule; c) The said

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

253 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & ors –vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

253 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & ors –vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

gains of business or profession”. 28. What needs to be examined whether the alleged expense has been expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the leasehold lands taken by the assessee on lease are used for carrying out business operation and the lumpsum lease money was paid

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

capital gain. 3.2. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) after taking into consideration the reply and contention of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 153A

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

capital gain. 3.2. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) after taking into consideration the reply and contention of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 153A

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

capital gain. 3.2. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) after taking into consideration the reply and contention of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 153A

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

capital gain. 3.2. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) after taking into consideration the reply and contention of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 153A

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

capital gain. 3.2. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) after taking into consideration the reply and contention of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 153A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

253 ITR 749, 172 CTR 339, 121 TAXMANN 43, (2002) 108 COMP. CAS. 675 (GUJ.)] and others “In the background of the aforesaid discussion and Judicial Pronouncements cited above, considering the averments of the AO, it is evident that the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer while Page 12 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year