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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) whether ld. Assessing Officer was possessing any material, which can enable him to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. The answer to the second question would arise upon the finding of the first question. In case, it is held that ld. Assessing Officer was having jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148, inspite of procedure contemplated

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

b) whether ld. Assessing Officer was possessing any material, which can enable him to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. The answer to the second question would arise upon the finding of the first question. In case, it is held that ld. Assessing Officer was having jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148, inspite of procedure contemplated

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

249/-, Ld. AO noted that assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.2,45,80,798/- as per schedule EI 5 ITA No.428/GTY/2019 & CO No. 12/GTY/2019 Pannalal Bhansali, AY: 2016-17 of his return as exempt income u/s. 10(38) of the Act towards LTCG. To examine the genuineness of claim of LTCG, Ld. AO called for details of shares

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

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

b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order under present appeals. 4. That the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT

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

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

b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order under present appeals. 4. That the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT

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

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

b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order under present appeals. 4. That the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT

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

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,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