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

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

26. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that in Section 43A (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2002) the expression ''for making payment” is in the context of increase or decrease of liability and the same hinges on “making payment towards the whole or a part of ... ". According to the learned

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

26. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that in Section 43A (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2002) the expression ''for making payment” is in the context of increase or decrease of liability and the same hinges on “making payment towards the whole or a part of ... ". According to the learned

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]

depreciation on guest house cannot be brought under the purview of section 37(4) as there are specific provisions for allowance of the same. The said items of expenditure are not governed by the provisions of section 37(1) which is pre-condition for applying section 37(4). Therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited above, it delete the disallowance

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(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that

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(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

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)." 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

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)." 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

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

26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material available on record. The issue raised in the additional ground by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing the claim of expenses of RS.18,73,242/- for amortisation of leasehold land. We notice that the appellant has taken various lands on lease

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

26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material available on record. The issue raised in the additional ground by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing the claim of expenses of RS.18,73,242/- for amortisation of leasehold land. We notice that the appellant has taken various lands on lease

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

26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material available on record. The issue raised in the additional ground by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing the claim of expenses of RS.18,73,242/- for amortisation of leasehold land. We notice that the appellant has taken various lands on lease

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

Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting the Capital expenditure. 3 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing revenue expenditure of Rs. 5,55,109/- u/s 40A(3). 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Sundry subscription Rs. 41,000/- u/s 36. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting the Capital expenditure. 3 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing revenue expenditure of Rs. 5,55,109/- u/s 40A(3). 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Sundry subscription Rs. 41,000/- u/s 36. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting the Capital expenditure. 3 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing revenue expenditure of Rs. 5,55,109/- u/s 40A(3). 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Sundry subscription Rs. 41,000/- u/s 36. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting the Capital expenditure. 3 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing revenue expenditure of Rs. 5,55,109/- u/s 40A(3). 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Sundry subscription Rs. 41,000/- u/s 36. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years