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. 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

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. 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 147/143(3) was completed on 18/12/2017 determining the assessed income of the assessee company at Rs.21,92,45,159/- after disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 147/143(3) was completed on 18/12/2017 determining the assessed income of the assessee company at Rs.21,92,45,159/- after disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

2) of section 288 (Chartered Accountant-emphasis added before the specified date referred to in section 44AB and the assessee furnishes by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form [Form 10CCB- emphasis added] duly signed and verified by such accountant" The present manual Form 10CCB as per Rule 188BB contains information to be provided for claiming

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

2) of section 288 (Chartered Accountant-emphasis added before the specified date referred to in section 44AB and the assessee furnishes by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form [Form 10CCB- emphasis added] duly signed and verified by such accountant" The present manual Form 10CCB as per Rule 188BB contains information to be provided for claiming

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

2) of section 288 (Chartered Accountant-emphasis added before the specified date referred to in section 44AB and the assessee furnishes by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form [Form 10CCB- emphasis added] duly signed and verified by such accountant" The present manual Form 10CCB as per Rule 188BB contains information to be provided for claiming

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

SAIKIA AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NOTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance by resorting to section 154 of the Act (rectify the mistake) and consequently has made the addition. 2 ITA No.413-414/Gau/2019 Saikia Auto Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2013-14 & 2014-15 4. According to AO, he fixed the matter on 03.08.2017 vide notice dated 18.07.2017, however, found that assessee did not appear before him, so he passed the section

SAIKIA AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NOTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

disallowance by resorting to section 154 of the Act (rectify the mistake) and consequently has made the addition. 2 ITA No.413-414/Gau/2019 Saikia Auto Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2013-14 & 2014-15 4. According to AO, he fixed the matter on 03.08.2017 vide notice dated 18.07.2017, however, found that assessee did not appear before him, so he passed the section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

2) and 142(1) of the Act, which were served on the assessee. Ld. AO observed that there has been persistent, continuous, systematic and calculated non-compliance or belated compliance by which assessee had dragged the proceedings to the fag-end of the assessment year, such that requisite enquiry/investigation into the affairs of the assessee on the above three noted

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

2) of the Act, we find that the AO has not made even a whisper to that effect, therefore, the essential condition precedent as stipulated in first proviso to section 147 of the Act has not been satisfied, therefore, the AO could not have usurped the jurisdiction without satisfying the same rendering the re- opening of assessment itself null