M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

17,46,80,387/- (12). Disallowance of claim of deduction for 'Other Provisions'. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2010-11; Rs.5,61,254/- 4. Now, we shall take above grounds, one by one. Common ground No.1 raised by the assessee is as follows: (1) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

17-18, 18-19 the income of previous year, as required by section 36(2) is also factually and legally incorrect. This point has been discussed in detail in this order, how income of the debts written off was taken into account in the previous year or in earlier assessment years and that conditions of section 36(2) are fully

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

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

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. 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. 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