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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) 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

23,636/- Ground No. 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs. 156,85,51,986/- Ground No. 4 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 156,46,99,775/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2012-13 Rs. 150,01,80,829/- Ground No. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 132,81,10,853/- (2) Disallowance of claim of deduction under section

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

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, 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. 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

23. In the present case, the Assessee had claimed that the assessments for the concerned assessment years were not pending on the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO and, therefore, would not abate by virtue of the second proviso to section 153A of the Act. Further, the period of six years would also have to be reckoned with