SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

depreciation under Sub-section of Section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. 9. Expounding the scope of the block assessment and inclusion of undisclosed income, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

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

Section Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

Section Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

Section Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

Section Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

Section Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 147/143(3) was completed on 18/12/2017 determining the assessed income of the assessee company at Rs.21,92,45,159/- after disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 147/143(3) was completed on 18/12/2017 determining the assessed income of the assessee company at Rs.21,92,45,159/- after disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI vs. M/S.ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the AY 2014-15 is dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal for the AY 2012-13 is allowed

depreciation to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. This position is also made clear by Circular No. 5-P dated 9.10.1967 issued by CBDT. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unamended) corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency

M/S. ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the AY 2014-15 is dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal for the AY 2012-13 is allowed

depreciation to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. This position is also made clear by Circular No. 5-P dated 9.10.1967 issued by CBDT. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unamended) corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency

BIMAN MUKHERJEE,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 44AE the appellant is not eligible to claim depreciation. Therefore, the addition of Rs.16,320/- and Rs.9,06,000/- made by the AO are confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. AR submitted that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

14) In light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 24.02.2006 does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/s. Kelvinator India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - Supreme Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

14) In light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 24.02.2006 does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/s. Kelvinator India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - Supreme Court

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]

depreciation on guest house cannot be brought under the purview of section 37(4) as there are specific provisions for allowance of the same. The said items of expenditure are not governed by the provisions of section 37(1) which is pre-condition for applying section 37(4). Therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited above, it delete the disallowance

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

14 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia book profits merely because of the enabling provision in the Expln. to s. 115J for the purpose of imposing a tax thereon. 21. After going through the above referred judgments and decisions and on examining the facts of the instant case, we find that the excise duty

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

14 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia book profits merely because of the enabling provision in the Expln. to s. 115J for the purpose of imposing a tax thereon. 21. After going through the above referred judgments and decisions and on examining the facts of the instant case, we find that the excise duty

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

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard Page 7 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. the rival submissions on the issue, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts lin perspective and concluding the issue in favour of assessee in the light

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

depreciation on Carnes at higher rate of 30% as claimed by the assessee. Thus, both the above grounds of appeal are allowed”. 11. With the help of ld. CIT(DR), we have gone through the record carefully. In our opinion, ld. Assessing Officer has misconstrued the provisions. The business activity of the assessee was letting of Cranes on hire