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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard 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 of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT

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

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard 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 of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT

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

47,266.00 12 Bank Charges 5,25,309.00 13 Interest on TDS 68,275.00 14 Interest on Service Tax 14,355.00 15 Interest on Paid (Others) 390.00 16 Interest on P.Tax 32.00 Total 2,73,21,11,988.00 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made due compliances to all the notices and provided the required

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

47,266.00 12 Bank Charges 5,25,309.00 13 Interest on TDS 68,275.00 14 Interest on Service Tax 14,355.00 15 Interest on Paid (Others) 390.00 16 Interest on P.Tax 32.00 Total 2,73,21,11,988.00 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made due compliances to all the notices and provided the required

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

47,266.00 12 Bank Charges 5,25,309.00 13 Interest on TDS 68,275.00 14 Interest on Service Tax 14,355.00 15 Interest on Paid (Others) 390.00 16 Interest on P.Tax 32.00 Total 2,73,21,11,988.00 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made due compliances to all the notices and provided the required

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

47,266.00 12 Bank Charges 5,25,309.00 13 Interest on TDS 68,275.00 14 Interest on Service Tax 14,355.00 15 Interest on Paid (Others) 390.00 16 Interest on P.Tax 32.00 Total 2,73,21,11,988.00 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made due compliances to all the notices and provided the required

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

47,266.00 12 Bank Charges 5,25,309.00 13 Interest on TDS 68,275.00 14 Interest on Service Tax 14,355.00 15 Interest on Paid (Others) 390.00 16 Interest on P.Tax 32.00 Total 2,73,21,11,988.00 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made due compliances to all the notices and provided the required

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

v. Arvind Mills Ltd. reported in 193 ITR 255. 29. To answer the controversy, we need to analyse Section 43 (unamended). The period in question in the batch of Civil Appeals is prior to Finance Act, 2002, therefore, we are required to consider the scope of Section 43A (unamended). 30. Section 43A starts with a non obstante clause. Section

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

v. Arvind Mills Ltd. reported in 193 ITR 255. 29. To answer the controversy, we need to analyse Section 43 (unamended). The period in question in the batch of Civil Appeals is prior to Finance Act, 2002, therefore, we are required to consider the scope of Section 43A (unamended). 30. Section 43A starts with a non obstante clause. Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrimanomohan Das, Jm Greenply Industries Ltd Acit, Circle-1 Madgul Lounge, 5 Th Floor, 23 Aaykar Bhawan, Milan Nagar, Chetiacental Road, Kolkata- Vs. Dibrugarh-786001, Assam 700027, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg7284R Assessee By : Shri Ashok Tulsyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

47,42,53,361/- in respect of Rudrapur MDF Unit. 4.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the Greenply Industries Ltd; A.Y. 2013-14 decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.402/GTY/2019, for A.Y. 2015-16, vide order dated

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

2,97,16,776 is allowed. 5. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated before the Bench that with