DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI vs. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 03, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

M/S. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessee`S Appeals

33. Common ground No.6 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “(6) Disallowance of claim of deduction of expenditure for 'Corporate Social Responsibility' made following Guidelines issued by the Government. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year 2007-08; Rs. 309,08,755/- Ground No.(6) for the Assessment Year

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]

section 37(4). I, therefore, delete the disallowance of Rs.5,26,969/- following decisions cited above. (10.5) The ad-hoc disallowance in my view is unwarranted. The A/O has not brought on record any material for such disallowance. In fact, he himself has written off that the disallowance is made on the basis of possibility that the expenditure

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]

33 I.T.A. No.21/Gau/2021 & CO No.1/Gau/2021 Fortune Vanijya Private Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 India Ltd vs CIT reported in (2014) 229 Taxman 555 (Del HC) ; Jai Steel (India) vs ACIT reported in (2013) 219 Taxman 223 (Del HC) ; CIT vs Murli Agro Products Ltd reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 172 (Bom HC) ; CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (NhavaSheva) Ltd reported

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SHILLONG vs. M/S. S.S. NETCOM (P) LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble& Dr. A.L.Saini, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.461/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

disallowed deduction of Rs. 77,33,101/- and Rs. 17,57,422/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. On appeal

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. 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

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. 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

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

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