MAHESH CHACHAN,GUWAHATI vs. PR. CONMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Mahesh Chachan Pr. Cit, Guwahati - 2 Kayal Market, Fancy Bazar, Vs. Guwahati-781001. Pan: Afxpc 3051 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 30.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-4(2), Guwahati, Dated 05.04.2017. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assesee Is On Challenging The Treatment Of Vat Remission As Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Revision U/S 263 Of The Act.

business of (ii) machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of this sub- section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that sub-section. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI vs. SANKHA PRESS PVT LTD, GUWAHATI

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

business income in the computation of total income because block of depreciable assets did not cease to exist as the entire

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI vs. SANKHA PRESS PVT LTD, GUWAHATI

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

business income in the computation of total income because block of depreciable assets did not cease to exist as the entire

SHIVAM PIPE INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

business loss and depreciation in the FY 2016-17 pertaining to AY 2017-18. Accordingly, there was no set off of depreciation available in AY 2017-18 as the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation were already been adjusted with earlier years’ income

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

business shall be deemed to have been calculated as if the eligible assessee had claimed and had been actually allowed the deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) Where an eligible assessee declares profit for any previous year in accordance with the provisions of this section and he declares profit

ASSISTANT 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

income, the assessee has not declared the purported claim of “Additional Depreciation”. In reply assessee submitted that, the assessee is engaged in the business

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

income, the assessee has not declared the purported claim of “Additional Depreciation”. In reply assessee submitted that, the assessee is engaged in the business

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

income, the assessee has not declared the purported claim of “Additional Depreciation”. In reply assessee submitted that, the assessee is engaged in the business

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

income, the assessee has not declared the purported claim of “Additional Depreciation”. In reply assessee submitted that, the assessee is engaged in the business

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

income, the assessee has not declared the purported claim of “Additional Depreciation”. In reply assessee submitted that, the assessee is engaged in the business

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

income vide paper book page 1 wherein the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,17,12,594/- (including additional depreciation of Rs.1,16,97,047/- vide copy of return at paper book page27) and business

H. M. CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation Rs.99,90,540/- Assessed Income Rs.79,72,699/- 5. Dissatisfied with the above order passed by the ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Shillong. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that the assessee had no business

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

business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure Therefore, on the basis of above facts, claim of the assessee for capitalization of GMC tax paid Rs. 17,49,055/- is disallowed within the ambit of explanation to section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total

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

business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure Therefore, on the basis of above facts, claim of the assessee for capitalization of GMC tax paid Rs. 17,49,055/- is disallowed within the ambit of explanation to section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total

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

business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure Therefore, on the basis of above facts, claim of the assessee for capitalization of GMC tax paid Rs. 17,49,055/- is disallowed within the ambit of explanation to section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total

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

business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure Therefore, on the basis of above facts, claim of the assessee for capitalization of GMC tax paid Rs. 17,49,055/- is disallowed within the ambit of explanation to section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total

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

business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure Therefore, on the basis of above facts, claim of the assessee for capitalization of GMC tax paid Rs. 17,49,055/- is disallowed within the ambit of explanation to section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total

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

business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure Therefore, on the basis of above facts, claim of the assessee for capitalization of GMC tax paid Rs. 17,49,055/- is disallowed within the ambit of explanation to section 37(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total