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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

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

54,39,202/- Ground No.(2) for the Assessment Year 2013-14; Rs. 7,35,87,056/- (9). Disallowance of claims of deduction under the head 'Provision for Doubtful Debt' Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(2 ) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 ; Rs. 13,97,827/- (10). Disallowance of claims of deduction of 'Prior period Depreciation'. Ground

JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Prakash Das Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati Kumud Enclave, Nawaram Vs. Kakati Path, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008. Pan: Ajipd 5193 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2020 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-2 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). That Neither The Learned Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,43,73,603/- On Account Of Proportionate Direct Expenses & Adding The Same In The Closing Stock Of The Appellant Nor The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Aforesaid Disallowance/Addition.

disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to the profits and gains of business or profession under sub- section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account

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]

54,66,700/-. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27/03/1996. With regard to the ground of appeal, the facts are that the assessee has filed a revised return wherein it has claimed deduction u/s 80G & 80HHC of the Act of Rs.1,16,090/- and Rs.7,14,163/-. The issue before us relates

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]

disallowances. 10. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid act of the learned Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. "(emphasis supplied) 43. Gainful reference may also be made to the following observations made by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. [69 taxmann.com 108], which is as follows: "Materials such as books

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

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

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. 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