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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of expenses under the head ‘Retirement Benefit of employees’. The brief facts qua the issue are that for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,22,722/-being provisions for retiring benefits of employees, in computation of income under the general provisions of the Act as well as in determining

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 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

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 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 has been made by the appellant for admission of these documents as additional evidence. These documents were sent to the Assessing Officer while calling for the remand report. As stated above, the Assessing Officer has not objected to the admission of these additional evidences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 has been made by the appellant for admission of these documents as additional evidence. These documents were sent to the Assessing Officer while calling for the remand report. As stated above, the Assessing Officer has not objected to the admission of these additional evidences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

BAGDEVI SUPPLIERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 can be produced before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority and not before the Tribunal. Such power rests with the Tribunal 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bagdevi Suppliers Pvt. Limited under Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. Hence it is a vague ground of appeal, it is not maintainable. 6. Similarly

RI-BHOI ISPAT & ROLLING MILLS,BYRNIHAT vs. ITO, WARD- BYRNIHAT, BYRNIHAT

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 69C on account of bogus purchases. However, the fact remains that no adverse action was taken against the supplies whether GST authorities. The facts are not known in this regard. Since the assessee is a manufacturing concern, the production record ought to have been examined, which has not been done in this case either

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance and also allow the exemption u/s 10(26) and also consider the cases covered by form No.15H/15G on I.T.A. No.: 50/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. production of supporting evidences. Thus ground on this point is partly allowed. In view of the above discussion, the ground raised by the appellant is partly allowed subject

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

section 250 of the income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal I.T.A. No. 159/GTY/2025 Assam Power Distribution Company Limited Centre(NFAC), Delhi was communicated on 11/03/2025. Consequently, the due date for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was on or before. However, the appeal

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, TINSUKIA

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

section 69A of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as the transactions are already recorded in the books of account and therefore bad in law. 7) That the aforesaid additions are arbitrary based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. 8) For that the additions / disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer without making

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

section 69A of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as the transactions are already recorded in the books of account and therefore bad in law. 7) That the aforesaid additions are arbitrary based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. 8) For that the additions / disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer without making