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)

255(4) of the Act. Our jurisdiction is confined to the issue(s) raised before Hon'ble Third Member only. The Revenue's pinpoints at this stage that the assessees had pleaded the very additional ground before Hon'ble Third Member also which was not entertained as evident from , para 35.6 of the order dated 05.04.2019. We therefore decline this

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

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 43A(1) overrides the other provisions only as regards

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

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 43A(1) overrides the other provisions only as regards

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

8 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia 45. Now coming to the issue relating to treatment of these subsidies while computing book profit u/s 115JB, we note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) held that the AO has the power to rework

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

8 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia 45. Now coming to the issue relating to treatment of these subsidies while computing book profit u/s 115JB, we note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) held that the AO has the power to rework

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