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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

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

disallowed such claim under Section 80IB and also under Section 80IC for the respective years on, inter alia, the following grounds:- A) The assessee’s oil wells for which the claim is made, is not an new industrial undertaking or enterprise; though there is no dispute that these are plants. B) As per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 18BBB

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

198/- and again claimed under different heads in the name of the projects under ‘Material Consumed’. 26. Out of the aforesaid expenses, ld. AO disallowed Rs. 84,89,594/- on account of vehicle expenses and Rs. 1,86,95,467/- on account of Machinery repair and maintenance alleging that the said expenses were claimed twice by the assessee. Page

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

198/- and again claimed under different heads in the name of the projects under ‘Material Consumed’. 26. Out of the aforesaid expenses, ld. AO disallowed Rs. 84,89,594/- on account of vehicle expenses and Rs. 1,86,95,467/- on account of Machinery repair and maintenance alleging that the said expenses were claimed twice by the assessee. Page

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

198/- and again claimed under different heads in the name of the projects under ‘Material Consumed’. 26. Out of the aforesaid expenses, ld. AO disallowed Rs. 84,89,594/- on account of vehicle expenses and Rs. 1,86,95,467/- on account of Machinery repair and maintenance alleging that the said expenses were claimed twice by the assessee. Page

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

198/- and again claimed under different heads in the name of the projects under ‘Material Consumed’. 26. Out of the aforesaid expenses, ld. AO disallowed Rs. 84,89,594/- on account of vehicle expenses and Rs. 1,86,95,467/- on account of Machinery repair and maintenance alleging that the said expenses were claimed twice by the assessee. Page

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

198/- and again claimed under different heads in the name of the projects under ‘Material Consumed’. 26. Out of the aforesaid expenses, ld. AO disallowed Rs. 84,89,594/- on account of vehicle expenses and Rs. 1,86,95,467/- on account of Machinery repair and maintenance alleging that the said expenses were claimed twice by the assessee. Page

S. K. TREXIM (P) LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 S.K. Trexim (P) Ltd. Dcit, Circle-2, Guwahati C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. Pan: Aancs 4492 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-1 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice & As Such, Is Not Sustainable In Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Dealing With The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ao. 3.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 92,80,000/-

section 68 of the Act. (b) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,56,53,787/- being 10% of gross turnover of Rs. 15,65,37,868/- being the income estimated by the AO after rejecting the book results