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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 the claim of assessee u/s 80IB(9) of the Act by the ld AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. Numaligarh Refinery Limited 8.We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

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 could be made under section 40A(3) - Held, yes [ Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]" CIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H) In this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when 11 Jyoti Prakash

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]

57,330/- claimed by the assessee on foreign of travel expenses of the wife of the Managing Director, Shri D. Sen. The Assessing Officer was of the view that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business. However, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted both the disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the Board

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

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

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against the CIT(A)’s common order holding the taxpayer as eligible for sec. 80IB