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)

depreciation under Sub-section of Section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. 9. Expounding the scope of the block assessment and inclusion of undisclosed income, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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

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