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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

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

section 80IC(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 20. Common ground No.3 raised by the assessee is as follows: “(3). Disallowance of claim of expenses under the head 'Prior Period Exp.' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(1) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08; Rs.2

ASSAM ROOFING LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

2. Without prejudice to the validity and the legality of the order as challenged above, on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) had grossly erred in treating the assessment year under appeal - that is assessment year 2014- 15 to be the 13th Year for claiming the deduction under section 80lE

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

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

disallowance. Mr. Jain took us to page 214 in the assessee’s paper book comprising of its Form 10CCB audit report (revised) making it clear that it had in fact raised sec. 80IB(4) deduction claim than sec. 80IB(a) (supra) of the Act. Page 219 (internal page 6) thereafter also contains the assessee’s specific response to clause “2

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

disallowed on this ground. 12.4 Reason No. (v) has already been referred to above. 12.5 It is, therefore, clear that all relevant material to decide the matter with reference to section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) was available on record and it was not necessary for the Bench to remand the case to the file