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

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

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.

disallowances of Rs.5235247, which had been made under section 143(3) read with 1448 in the original Assessment Order dated 27.09.2021 that had been impugned before the learned CIT(A) in the Appeal no.: NFAC/2017- 18/10102742. As the subsequent assessment order under section 147 for the same A.Y. 2018-19 was presumably in supersession of the earlier assessment order under

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, 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

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

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

253 of the Act if the Tribunal is satisfied that there were sufficient causes and reasons for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated period. The Ld. A.R submitted that since the reasons attributable to late filing the appeal are beyond the control of the assessee, therefore in the interest of justice and fair play the appeal of the assessee

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]

3. As regards the Assessing Officer's reasoning that section 32AB and 33AB do not contain any provisions analogous to section 33A (5) and section 32A (6), it is submitted that the said sub-sections in sections 33A and 32A make it incumbent upon the amalgamated company to fulfill the conditions required for allowance under the said sections and also

NEW TECH STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3), The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 11Th March, 2025. However, The Appeal Could Only Be Filed On 4Rd June, 2025, Resulting In A Delay Of 85 Days. The Reasons For The Delay Are Detailed Below: 1. That Due To Serious Health Condition, The Appellant Was Unable To Continue The Required Legal Proceedings As He Was A Prolonged Sufferer Of Acute Pancreatitis & Chronic Liver Disease (Cld), Both Of Which Significantly Compromised His

253(3), the appeal was required to be filed on or before 11th March, 2025. However, the appeal could only be filed on 4rd June, 2025, resulting in a delay of 85 days. The reasons for the delay are detailed below: 1. That due to serious health condition, the appellant was unable to continue the required legal proceedings

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

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

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]

253(which has since been accepted and later followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court), that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. As discussed at Para 13 (supra), the language of the fourth proviso to section 153A of the Act show that issuance