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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

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 32(1)(iia) of the Act, the claim of Additional Depreciation is permissible in the case of an assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On the other hand, the claim of depreciation at Excess rate is different from the claim of Additional Depreciation. Since, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on a wrong

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

disallowed. He has to verify if this provision has been included in the WIP or not. If included then it is to be adjudicated once it has not been allowed as a deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

disallowed. He has to verify if this provision has been included in the WIP or not. If included then it is to be adjudicated once it has not been allowed as a deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

disallowed. He has to verify if this provision has been included in the WIP or not. If included then it is to be adjudicated once it has not been allowed as a deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account

SHIWAJI PD. JAISWAL,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 143(1) of the Act on 30.07.2019, where there is a disallowance of Rs. 32,67,767/- and demand

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. We have gone through the above decision of this Tribunal and find that the same is squarely applicable on the issue raised before us and therefore, respectfully following the same, we allow the ground no.3 raised by the assessee

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. We have gone through the above decision of this Tribunal and find that the same is squarely applicable on the issue raised before us and therefore, respectfully following the same, we allow the ground no.3 raised by the assessee

S.B. BHATTACHARJEE MEMORIAL TRUST FOR CHILDREN EDUCATION ,DIGBOI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance and a demand of Rs. 32,77,170/- was raised. The CPC, Bangaluru while processing the appellant’s return of income for the AY 2022-23 filed on 07/11/2022, denied grant of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act due to the fact that

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 33/GTY/2024 Amit Kumar 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 33/GTY/2024 Amit Kumar 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA VALLEY FERTILIZER CORPORATION LIMITED, DIBRUGARH

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 43B of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)was justified in deleting the disallowance of prior period adjustment when such prior period expenses is not allowable to an assessee following the mercantile system of accounting.” C.O. No. 01/Gau/2022 Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corpn. Ltd., AY 2008-09 3. The issue

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp value is that the resort was under heavy financial crunch and the properties were

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp value is that the resort was under heavy financial crunch and the properties were

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp value is that the resort was under heavy financial crunch and the properties were

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp value is that the resort was under heavy financial crunch and the properties were

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp value is that the resort was under heavy financial crunch and the properties were