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, 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

M/S. ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the AY 2014-15 is dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal for the AY 2012-13 is allowed

92,860/- declared in the e-return filed for the AY 2014-15 on 30-09-2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of valid notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. After examining the details filed by the assessee the ld. AO apart from making disallowances of computer maintenance accessories at Rs.6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI vs. M/S.ASSAM CARBON PRODUCTS LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for the AY 2014-15 is dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal for the AY 2012-13 is allowed

92,860/- declared in the e-return filed for the AY 2014-15 on 30-09-2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of valid notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. After examining the details filed by the assessee the ld. AO apart from making disallowances of computer maintenance accessories at Rs.6

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

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

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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

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

92,370/- as bad debt and has very precisely quantified the amounts in respect of industrial/rural consumers, there is no conceivable reason as to why it persistently has not been able to demonstrate that the write-off amount was included as taxable receipts in an earlier year(s) on due basis. 12.7 Under the circumstances, no case has been made

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