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

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. 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

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

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/ 143(3

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/ 143(3

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/ 143(3

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/ 143(3

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/ 143(3

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

3 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia 4. ITA No. 232/GAU/2019: Ground No. 1 relates to allowing claim of education cess. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing this ground. We, therefore, dismiss Ground No. 1 as not pressed. 5. Ground No. 2: Through this ground, it is claimed

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

3 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia 4. ITA No. 232/GAU/2019: Ground No. 1 relates to allowing claim of education cess. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing this ground. We, therefore, dismiss Ground No. 1 as not pressed. 5. Ground No. 2: Through this ground, it is claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA vs. M/S. BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble]

capital of Brooke Bond India Limited. The said approval was obtained by form no. 21 dated 31" May, 1993 under the Companies Act (copy enclosed Annexure -4). The Scheme of amalgamation therefore became effective only on and from 1" June, 1993. In the assessment order passed for the year under appeal the Assessing Officer has added back an aggregate

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

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

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

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