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

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

55 92019) (Mumbai-Trib.); (ix) Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- PCIT (2020) (ITA No. 742 & 743/KOL/2019). To conclude it was stated that the excise duty being capital receipt and given with the object to achieve industrialization in the backward areas of Uttaranchal and to generate employment opportunities, the same is not liable to be taxed under the normal

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

55 92019) (Mumbai-Trib.); (ix) Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- PCIT (2020) (ITA No. 742 & 743/KOL/2019). To conclude it was stated that the excise duty being capital receipt and given with the object to achieve industrialization in the backward areas of Uttaranchal and to generate employment opportunities, the same is not liable to be taxed under the normal

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 was claimed by the assessee for this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that

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 was claimed by the assessee for this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even

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

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

2) of the Act are inapplicable. In fact, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was obliged to debit the bad debt account and credit the customer’s account, thus closing the account of the customer.(In the case of companies, the provision is deducted from the Sundry Debtors). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, even