ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA vs. M/S. BROOKE BOND INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble]

disallowance of Rs.2,19,13,300/- made by the A/O (challenged in ground no. 15) for this reason. (12.3) I will now deal with the issue whether a case of amalgamation would be attracting the provisions of section 32AB(7) and section 33AB(8). (12.4.) Section 32AB(7) and section 33AB(8) provide that where assets acquired under the scheme

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

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. 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

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. 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, 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

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

253 has arisen because of sufficient cause, and the sequence of the events leading to the delay has been as described below: (a) The memorandum of appeal was required to be submitted by 17.05.2074, 1.c. within 60(sixty) days of receipt of the appeal under section 250 on 18.03.2024. (b) However, on 21.03.2024, the said company received another Assessment

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of amortization leasehold lands. We thus decline to interfere”. 30. We, therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions referred hereinabove, are of the view that the amortization of leasehold land and land development charges of Rs.18,73,242/- deserves to be allowed as an expenditure under section

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.31,038/-. Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.54,42,24,737/- and income computed under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.3,23,17,984/- (after giving set off of the MAT credit of Rs.18,49,81,989/-). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.31,038/-. Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.54,42,24,737/- and income computed under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.3,23,17,984/- (after giving set off of the MAT credit of Rs.18,49,81,989/-). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before