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)

4) For the purpose of assessment under this chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed 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

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]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 1993-94. I.T.A. No. 99/Gau/2000 Assessment Year: 1993-94 M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited (successors in-interest to Doom Dooma India Ltd.) C.O. No. 08/Gau/2000 Assessment Year: 1993-94 M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited (successors in-interest to Doom Dooma India Ltd.) 2 2. On receipt

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.07.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/ 1078777515(1) as per the grounds raised by the assessee after going through the grounds, the substantive grievance raised by the assessee is the deduction

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

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

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:

250/-, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves leave to submit and/or alter any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal.” ITA 127/Gty/2023 “1. That despite having held that the Income Tax Return filed by the appellant was an invalid return as per provisions of section

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:

250/-, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves leave to submit and/or alter any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal.” ITA 127/Gty/2023 “1. That despite having held that the Income Tax Return filed by the appellant was an invalid return as per provisions of section

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 05.06.2024, I.T.A. No.: 255/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrinal Das. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 01.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ . 2. On perusal the grounds raised by the assessee and revenue we notice that common issue relating to disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuations loss has been raised. Assessee has raised this issue for the AY 2012-13 for the disallowance of Rs.70,31,000/- and Revenue

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ . 2. On perusal the grounds raised by the assessee and revenue we notice that common issue relating to disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuations loss has been raised. Assessee has raised this issue for the AY 2012-13 for the disallowance of Rs.70,31,000/- and Revenue

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Dibrugarh [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 21.06.2019 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20.02.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in manufacture of articles and things in NER. The assessee filed filed its original return of income