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)

142 or Section 148) but assessments have not been made till the date of search or requisition, on the basis of the income disclosed in such returns; (c) where the due date for filing a return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed,- (A) on the basis of entries as recorded in the books

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the above provision has submitted that this section 29 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & 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 is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the above provision has submitted that this section 29 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & 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

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

142(1) to which the assessee responded, providing a list with PAN numbers, names, and TDS deductions. However, detailed confirmations, ledgers, bank statements, and ITR copies were not provided. Notices under section 133(6) were issued to a sample of individuals to verify the genuineness of expenses. Some individuals responded with the required details, while others did not. Payments made

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

142(1) of the Act. After examining the details filed by the assessee the ld. AO apart from making disallowances of computer maintenance accessories at Rs.6,17,000/- made disallowance of loss on foreign exchange fluctuations at Rs. 195,47,000/- claimed by the assessee due to increase in value of foreign currency such as GBP(Pound Sterling). US Dollar

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

142(1) of the Act. After examining the details filed by the assessee the ld. AO apart from making disallowances of computer maintenance accessories at Rs.6,17,000/- made disallowance of loss on foreign exchange fluctuations at Rs. 195,47,000/- claimed by the assessee due to increase in value of foreign currency such as GBP(Pound Sterling). US Dollar

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

142(1) of the Act. Various details as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer were filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered into an international transaction of Rs.195.93 crores (approx.) and also specified domestic transaction at Rs.149.48 crores (Approx.). The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

142(1) of the Act. Various details as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer were filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered into an international transaction of Rs.195.93 crores (approx.) and also specified domestic transaction at Rs.149.48 crores (Approx.). The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

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)

section." The condition therefore is that the industry should be new and is not formed by splitting up or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence: It is submitted that first year of the business and production was AY 2017-18. The assessment for this year was taken up for scrutiny. The Ld AO made number of requisitions

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.

142(1) dated 10.02.2017 required the assessee to furnishing, inter alia, copy of Form 10CCB and details of statutory liabilities along with proof of payments. Assessee made its written submission, complying with the said notice. While computing the assessed income, ld. AO allowed deduction u/s 80IE claimed by the assessee of Rs. 13,88,272/-. The assessment was completed

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

142(1) of the Act. Book profit of the assessee was shown at Rs. 9,27,68,667/-. Assessment Page 2 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act on 20.02.2019 making disallowance of amortization expenses on the lands taken on lease at Rs. Rs.22