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:

48,190/-, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave to submit and/or alter any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Before us, the Ld. AR stated at the Bar that he was only pressing Ground Nos. 2 individually in both the years

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:

48,190/-, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave to submit and/or alter any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Before us, the Ld. AR stated at the Bar that he was only pressing Ground Nos. 2 individually in both the years

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

depreciation of Rs. 3,23,72,494/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 44. Ground no. 4 raised by the Revenue is on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,05,471/- u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted Page 40 of 114 I.T.A

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

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

48,05,504/-. Resultantly the same was added back to the total income under section 69A of the Act. Per contra, the appellant has submitted as under: (a) The assessing officer has observed that as on 31.03.2007 the cash balance was Rs.5908962/- as per Schedule - 7 of the audited accounts. However, the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2007 has been

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

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard the rival submissions on the issue, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts lin perspective and concluding the issue in favour of assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard the rival submissions on the issue, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts lin perspective and concluding the issue in favour of assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd. 2014-15 24.09.2014 Nil 28,91,87,935 16,79,15,802 Nil 2015-16 22.09.2015 Nil 6,99,57,852 1,90,39,000 Nil 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances