JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason was recorded

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction

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

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

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 deduction