INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

gains in the form of penny stock by way of trading in the scrips of M/s. Golden Bull Research & Growth Limited, Regency Trust Limited and Global Capital Markets Limited and has received bogus LTCG of Rs.3,57,490/- as a beneficiary. In view of the above facts and circumstances “by reasons of the failure 3 Satinder Singh

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three

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

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 153 C of the Act was not met in the case of the two Assessees 33. This Court does not consider it necessary to examine the merits of the case as far as the deletions by the CIT (A) of the additions made by the AO under Section 153C of the Act are concerned. In any event, a detailed

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. KRISHNA BORTHAKUR, L/R OF LATE KAMAKHYA BORTHAKUR, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) is separately initiated for concealment of income”. 6 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sri Kamakhya Borthakur, Tinsukia In this way, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.42,00,000/-. 6. The ld. CIT(Appeals), on the other hand, has deleted this addition. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority took a very theoretical approach in deleting this

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]

57,330/- claimed by the assessee on foreign of travel expenses of the wife of the Managing Director, Shri D. Sen. The Assessing Officer was of the view that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business. However, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted both the disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the Board

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings in computing the total income of an assessee an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in the section. A perusal of legislative history of section 80IB(9) of the Act shows that the Finance Act,1999 restructured old section 80IA into

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings in computing the total income of an assessee an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in the section. A perusal of legislative history of section 80IB(9) of the Act shows that the Finance Act,1999 restructured old section 80IA into

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings in computing the total income of an assessee an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in the section. A perusal of legislative history of section 80IB(9) of the Act shows that the Finance Act,1999 restructured old section 80IA into