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

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

40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. This tribunal’s order in ITA No. 767/Kol/2016 Dipak Parui vs. JCIT decided on 20.07.2018 holds the above proviso inserted in the Act to be a curative one having retrospective effect. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow

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

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

40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. This tribunal’s order in ITA No. 767/Kol/2016 Dipak Parui vs. JCIT decided on 20.07.2018 holds the above proviso inserted in the Act to be a curative one having retrospective effect. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow

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

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

40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. This tribunal’s order in ITA No. 767/Kol/2016 Dipak Parui vs. JCIT decided on 20.07.2018 holds the above proviso inserted in the Act to be a curative one having retrospective effect. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow

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

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

40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. This tribunal’s order in ITA No. 767/Kol/2016 Dipak Parui vs. JCIT decided on 20.07.2018 holds the above proviso inserted in the Act to be a curative one having retrospective effect. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow

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

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

40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. This tribunal’s order in ITA No. 767/Kol/2016 Dipak Parui vs. JCIT decided on 20.07.2018 holds the above proviso inserted in the Act to be a curative one having retrospective effect. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow

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

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

40(a)(ia) from 100% to 30% only. This tribunal’s order in ITA No. 767/Kol/2016 Dipak Parui vs. JCIT decided on 20.07.2018 holds the above proviso inserted in the Act to be a curative one having retrospective effect. We therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the impugned disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow

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

section 143(3) on 18.12.2017 determining the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.21,92,45,159/-. In this re-assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs.71,40,599/- on the ground that excess depreciation

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

section 143(3) on 18.12.2017 determining the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.21,92,45,159/-. In this re-assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs.71,40,599/- on the ground that excess depreciation

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

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, CIRCLE -TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. KRISHNA BORTHAKUR, L/R OF LATE KAMAKHYA BORTHAKUR, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation @ 40% on the vehicles given on hire". The above decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of M/s. ICDS Ltd. (supra) where in it was held, at para 15, to quote; "In the present case before us, the assessee

RAITANI ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, GUWAHATI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Raitani Engineering Works V/S. Jcut, Range-3, (P) Ltd., Railway Colony, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan Bazar, Guwahati- G.S. Road, Christan 781001 Basti, Guwahati- [Pan No.Aaacr 6691 K] 781005 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Rabindro Singh, Jcit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-07-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-09-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guwahati’S Order Dated 19.02.2014 Passed In Case No.Guwa-60/2013-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. The Assessee’S Detailed Paper Book Running Into 132 Pages Comprising Of Various Documents, The Assessing Officer’S Notice During Scrutiny, Cash Book Of Assessee’S Head Office, Computation, Financial Statements; Stands Perused.

40,398/-. The assessee has recognized the revenue on Project Completion Method and disclosed a net profit of Rs.1,80,68,995/- without considering the depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which in terms of percentage, comes to only 3.78% of the gross contract receipts. The net profit was shown at Rs.63

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

40(a)(ia) of the Act etc. as there was no opportunity for the Ld. AO to verify the same. The assessee during the course of appellate proceeding had submitted that there had been change in the total turnover for the AY 2018-19 as compared to the turnover shown in the ITR for AY 2018-19 and apart from

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]

40:60 has to be made. The Assessing Officer did not accept this contention. However, the ld. First Appellate Authority has accepted this contention on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Periakaramalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. and others (84 ITR 643). 3.2. After going through this well reasoned finding

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