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 was claimed by the assessee for this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 143

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 was claimed by the assessee for this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 143

SMT. MAYA RANI 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)

143 or Section 144 or Section 147 have been concluded (prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition), on the basis of such assessments; (b) where returns of income have been filed under Section 139 (or in response to a notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148) but assessments

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)

143 or Section 144 or Section 147 have been concluded (prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition), on the basis of such assessments; (b) where returns of income have been filed under Section 139 (or in response to a notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148) but assessments

SHRI ASHISH KUMAR 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)

143 or Section 144 or Section 147 have been concluded (prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition), on the basis of such assessments; (b) where returns of income have been filed under Section 139 (or in response to a notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148) but assessments

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

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, 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. TAMCHI KUSUK, ITANAGAR

In the result, the appeal as well as Cross Objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

143(3) read with section 263. The computation of income in this assessment order reads as under:- “Therefore, based on the above discussions the income is computed as under:- Contract income from Arunachal Pradesh: NIL Income from Tripura: Rs.48,62,252/- (as discussed in para 8) Add: As discussed in para 7 : Rs.1,81,07,565/- Less Depreciation

DEG FASHION AND LIFESTYLES,SHILLONG vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

depreciation of Rs. 75,000/- was also claimed. The Appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding the same. The appellant is selectively quoting from the statement of the partner recorded during the survey. However, it failed to explain the basis of disclosure of additional income in the ITR. …………….. 6.4.4. In order to give further opportunity to Appellant, the undersigned

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that assessee was a partner in two partnership firms, namely M/s. Gargo Properties, Tinsukia and M/s. Borthakur & Co., Duliajan. Apart 3 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sri Kamakhya Borthakur, Tinsukia from these two partnership firms, he was running a proprietorship

M/S. DREAM BUILDCON (P) LTD.,,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

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

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

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer and that the assessee company has claimed interest expenses of Rs.23,20,402/-. On the other hand, it has given interest-free loan and advances of Rs.4,50,000/- to Windchimes Constructions (P) Limited and Rs.1