HOTEL POLO TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwali.T.A. No.287/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Hotel Polo Towers (P) Ltd..…….……………….…………...………..….. Appellant Polo Grounds, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya. [Pan: Aabct0864B] Vs. Acit, Circle, Shillong………….....….………………………………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. M. Roy, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 11, 2021 Order Shri Partha Sarathi Choudhury:

154 (SC) dated 12.02.2018 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed and held as follows: “41) Having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind

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

disallowance made amounting to Rs. 2,15,53,154/- on estimate basis without specifying the exact bills is totally incorrect and uncalled for. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) wholly erred in appreciating the fact that the appellant year after year, assessed under section

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

disallowance made amounting to Rs. 2,15,53,154/- on estimate basis without specifying the exact bills is totally incorrect and uncalled for. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) wholly erred in appreciating the fact that the appellant year after year, assessed under section

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

disallowance made amounting to Rs. 2,15,53,154/- on estimate basis without specifying the exact bills is totally incorrect and uncalled for. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) wholly erred in appreciating the fact that the appellant year after year, assessed under section

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

disallowance made amounting to Rs. 2,15,53,154/- on estimate basis without specifying the exact bills is totally incorrect and uncalled for. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) wholly erred in appreciating the fact that the appellant year after year, assessed under section

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

disallowance made amounting to Rs. 2,15,53,154/- on estimate basis without specifying the exact bills is totally incorrect and uncalled for. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) wholly erred in appreciating the fact that the appellant year after year, assessed under section

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

disallowances of Rs.5235247, which had been made under section 143(3) read with 1448 in the original Assessment Order dated 27.09.2021 that had been impugned before the learned CIT(A) in the Appeal no.: NFAC/2017- 18/10102742. As the subsequent assessment order under section 147 for the same A.Y. 2018-19 was presumably in supersession of the earlier assessment order under

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined perusal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

154 ITR 893. Though this said case deals with sales tax, the principle laid down in that case supports our view. The mischief that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act intended to present, is taken care of by the provisions of the Bengal Electricity Duty Act itself." 8. The above finding of ld. CIT(A) placing reliance

MEGHALAYA CO-OP. APEX BANK LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Meghalaya Co-Op. Apex Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle - Shillong Vs. M. G. Road, Shillong- 793001 (Pan: Aaam8227G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 as referred to ( iii) above. 2. Wrong method of calculation adopted in following rule 8D for the purpose of Section 14A as prevalent during the assessment year 2011-12. The Learned A.O. erred in law by effecting a wrong method of calculation of disallowance

PRIYANSHU BOIRAGI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

disallowed an amount of Rs. 84,53,370/- in the hands of assessee on the ground that such VAT Remission cannot said to be core activity or for the purpose of the manufacturing business carried on by the assessee. Subsequent to the assessment order, assessee had filed rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act on various dates