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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

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

Section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The said disallowance is a statutory disallowance and the AO has no discretion in this regard. The Appellant also did not elaborate whether the payments fall under any exceptions. Hence, it can be concluded that the AO has rightfully disallowed the payments. Thus, the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act amounting

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. M/S. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

section 40(b)(v) of the Act and duly authorized by the partnership deed. It is further noted that out of the aggregate amount of Rs. 1,30,05,216/­ (Rs. 8,10,000/­ for salary and Rs. 1,21,95,216/­ for commission) paid as remuneration/ commission, an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,18,55,4561­ was paid

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.71,40,599/- on the ground that excess depreciation was claimed by the assessee for this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed a sum of Rs.71,40,599/- on the ground that excess depreciation was claimed by the assessee for this assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 26.03.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section

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

2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1,74,28,34,235.00 16. The assessee had submitted all the details such as ledgers, party-wise and site-wise details

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

2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1,74,28,34,235.00 16. The assessee had submitted all the details such as ledgers, party-wise and site-wise details

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

2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1,74,28,34,235.00 16. The assessee had submitted all the details such as ledgers, party-wise and site-wise details

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

2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1,74,28,34,235.00 16. The assessee had submitted all the details such as ledgers, party-wise and site-wise details

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

2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1,74,28,34,235.00 16. The assessee had submitted all the details such as ledgers, party-wise and site-wise details