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)

29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. I.T.A. No. 120/GTY/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 to 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey I.T.A. No. 121/ GTY /2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 to 08/12/1999 Smt. Maya Rani Dey I.T.A. No. 122/ GTY /2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 to 08/12/1999 Shri Ashish Kumar Dey 3 Though they are very much part of the record of the learned Assessing

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

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 cases

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

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 cases

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 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) : 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the above provision has submitted that this section 29

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 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) : 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the above provision has submitted that this section 29

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), GUWAHATI vs. PRAG RAJ SINGLA, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

depreciation,electricity charges etc. The assessee is a director in M/s Shiva Bottles Pvt. Ltd andearns salary income. The assessee also earns interest income.The assessing officer,on perusal of balance sheet and other details, noticed that the assessee has taken fresh unsecured loan of Rs. 80,00,000/- from Ms. Jenita Wallang during the relevant previous year. The assessee

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

29,666/- 4.4 The assessee has provided comprehensive explanation in form of written submission for the payments made towards business expenses. It is essential to Page 3 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 39/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhar Construction Company. emphasize that the non-filing of the tax return by the payee should not be construed as evidence against the genuineness

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JB MAT adjustment relating to leave encashment deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in view of our findings on the main issue. This appeal ITA No. 243/GAU/2017 also follows suit therefore. Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 63/GAU/2018 20. The assessee’s three substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JB MAT adjustment relating to leave encashment deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in view of our findings on the main issue. This appeal ITA No. 243/GAU/2017 also follows suit therefore. Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 63/GAU/2018 20. The assessee’s three substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JB MAT adjustment relating to leave encashment deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in view of our findings on the main issue. This appeal ITA No. 243/GAU/2017 also follows suit therefore. Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 63/GAU/2018 20. The assessee’s three substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JB MAT adjustment relating to leave encashment deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in view of our findings on the main issue. This appeal ITA No. 243/GAU/2017 also follows suit therefore. Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 63/GAU/2018 20. The assessee’s three substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JB MAT adjustment relating to leave encashment deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in view of our findings on the main issue. This appeal ITA No. 243/GAU/2017 also follows suit therefore. Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 63/GAU/2018 20. The assessee’s three substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 115JB MAT adjustment relating to leave encashment deserves to be restored back to the Assessing Officer in view of our findings on the main issue. This appeal ITA No. 243/GAU/2017 also follows suit therefore. Assessment Year 2010-11 ITA No. 63/GAU/2018 20. The assessee’s three substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenging correctness of both the lower