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

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

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

depreciation to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. This position is also made clear by Circular No. 5-P dated 9.10.1967 issued by CBDT. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unamended) corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency

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

depreciation to be allowed with reference to such increased/decreased cost. This position is also made clear by Circular No. 5-P dated 9.10.1967 issued by CBDT. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unamended) corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency

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 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year

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 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year

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

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

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

33 para 26.4 that the said issue of correctness of TVAT is yet to attain finality since the taxpayers revision petition is stated to be pending. Nor there is adjudication either in assessment order or the CIT(A)’s order as to whether the amount in question represents a penalty per se or it is a mere penal action

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

depreciation along with subsidy received by the respondent-assessee. It is settled position in law as held by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v/s. CIT 122 Taxman 562/255 ITR 273 (SC) that the Assessing Officer while computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Act has only a power to examine whether the books of account have

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

33,912/-. Apart from the adjustment suggested by the TPO, ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed the amortization of leasehold land at Rs.18,73,242/- and made disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.31,038/-. Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.54,42,24,737/- and income computed under section 115JB