AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

70,00,000/- (for A.Y. 2012-13), Rs.2,05,00,000/- (for A.Y. 2013-14), Rs.1,75,00,000/- (for A.Y. 2015-16) made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact of the case mentioned in Form No. 35 itself. 3. In ITA No. 224/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following ground :- Assessment

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 as presumed by AO has come into operation from 01-04-2017 whereas transaction relates to earlier year so it does not come within the definition of incriminating material and has no effect on determination of our taxable income. 8. That Sir, it can be looked also from another angle i.e. after initiating the proceeding what has happed

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 197(2). Other Expenses-Material consumed, labour Charge etc. 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in deleting Construction expenses, labour charges/Salary, store and spare expenses, other direct expenses, other expenses such as office expenses, travel & conveyance etc. disallowed expenses of Rs.3,62,37,711/­ as being based on conjectures & surmises. In doing

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

disallowed on this ground. 12.4 Reason No. (v) has already been referred to above. 12.5 It is, therefore, clear that all relevant material to decide the matter with reference to section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) was available on record and it was not necessary for the Bench to remand the case to the file

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

3) of the income tax Act 1961 is proved form the facts on record As regard sec 80IE: (4) the provision is as under- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, in computing the total income of the assessee, no deduction shall be allowed under any other section contained in Chapter VIA or in section