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)

4) For the purpose of assessment under this chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under Sub-section

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]

4) of the At can be made out of the above expenditure except Rs.20,000/-. The finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- “(10.3) I have considered the matter. Repair and maintenance depreciation on guest house cannot be brought under the purview of section

MAHESH CHACHAN,GUWAHATI vs. PR. CONMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Mahesh Chachan Pr. Cit, Guwahati - 2 Kayal Market, Fancy Bazar, Vs. Guwahati-781001. Pan: Afxpc 3051 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 30.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-4(2), Guwahati, Dated 05.04.2017. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assesee Is On Challenging The Treatment Of Vat Remission As Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Revision U/S 263 Of The Act.

4) of section 80-IB or under section 10C, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessment years. (6) The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible undertaking under this section. (7) For the purposes of this section,— (i) "initial assessment

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

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

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

4) and 801E (5) is not complied with. It is submitted that the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down under above three sub-sections were on record. The said is explained as under- 80-IE... "(3) This section applies to any undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or the reconstruction

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

4 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited the ld. Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and reopened the assessment. The re- assessment order was passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 18.12.2017 determining the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.21

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

4 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited the ld. Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and reopened the assessment. The re- assessment order was passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 18.12.2017 determining the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.21

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

MRINAL DAS,BAKSA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections shall be allowed. (3) The written down value of any asset of an eligible business shall be deemed to have been calculated as if the eligible assessee had claimed and had been actually allowed the deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4

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

DEG FASHION AND LIFESTYLES,SHILLONG vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

depreciation of Rs. 75,000/- was also claimed. The Appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding the same. The appellant is selectively quoting from the statement of the partner recorded during the survey. However, it failed to explain the basis of disclosure of additional income in the ITR. …………….. 6.4.4. In order to give further opportunity to Appellant, the undersigned

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

4 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. scope of his powers is coterminous with that of the ITO. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do………………. The CIT(A) can modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised