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

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

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

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, 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. TAMCHI KUSUK, ITANAGAR

In the result, the appeal as well as Cross Objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

34,537/- but claimed it exempt under section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. An assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 31.03.2006 rejecting the claim of exemption in respect of income arose to the assessee from execution of contract works at Tripura. This order was set aside by the ld. Commissioner by exercising powers under section

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

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

depreciation claim disallowance of Rs. 18,84,00,000/-, both the lower authorities invoke Section 43(1) explanation 10 that the assessee had acquired the corresponding assets through government grants subsidies and therefore, it is not entitled for the impugned relief. The assessee on the other hand pleads that it had received total capital grant from the Tripura State

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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting