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)

65, 66/Gau/2003. 7. The controversy before us in the present appeals relates to levy of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act. Before adverting to this provision and the specific pleas raised before us, we deem it proper to keep in mind the scheme of block assessments u/s 158BC of the Act. I.T.A. No. 120/GTY/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 to 08/12/1999

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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]

depreciation on guest house cannot be brought under the purview of section 37(4) as there are specific provisions for allowance of the same. The said items of expenditure are not governed by the provisions of section 37(1) which is pre-condition for applying section 37(4). Therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited above, it delete the disallowance

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 allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the above provision has submitted that this section 29 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year

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 allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 21. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the above provision has submitted that this section 29 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

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

65 SOT 14 (Cochin) (URO) (Refer Page 151 -156 of the Case Law Paperbook) wherein it was held that any income, which does not fall within the purview of Total Income u/s 5 of the IT Act, cannot be taxed under any other provisions of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the provisions of Chapter

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

65 SOT 14 (Cochin) (URO) (Refer Page 151 -156 of the Case Law Paperbook) wherein it was held that any income, which does not fall within the purview of Total Income u/s 5 of the IT Act, cannot be taxed under any other provisions of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the provisions of Chapter

M/S. RAHMAN PROPERTIES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Rahman Properties Limited Tax, Range-2, Guwahati C/O Hotel Dynasty, S.S. Road, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Lakhtokia, Guwahati-781001, Vs. Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Assam Guwahati-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr0023P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Shrivastava, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

65,276.24 To Building A/c Cr 34,55,413.23 To Plant & Machinery A/c Cr 1,60,834.70 To Furniture & Fixtures A/c Cr 3,59,029.29 To Electrical Installations A/c Cr 6,89,999.02 Adjusting these write-offs against fixed assets does not affect the taxable income computation, as: It does not increase or decrease the Profit & Loss Account. Depreciation will

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.

65,320/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for which statutory notices were issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1), all of which were duly complied with. In the course of assessment, ld. AO vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.02.2017 required the assessee to furnishing, inter alia, copy of Form 10CCB and details of statutory

ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. ACIT / DCIT, CIR 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes only

Depreciation Expenses Net Profit After Value of Total Allowable\nnt Year Considering the per Profit & Expenses allowed u/s Considering all Rural Advances Provision\nprovision debited Loss Account as las per Income Tax Act, 1961 Act, 1961\n/credited in P&L\nA/c\nadjustments\nTotal Income\nAllowable\nProvision\n@7.5% of 10% of Rural\nANNEXURE A\nNet Taxable\n@Income\n2006

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

depreciation. The allowability of costs towards amortization of leasehold land is in question. Having heard Page 7 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. 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