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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

section 80-1C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground and Assessment Year Amount Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2008-09; Rs.351,28,35,732/- Ground No.(4) for the Assessment Year 2009-10; Rs.221,27,40,983/- Ground No.(7) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 Rs.170,67,11,811/- Numaligarh Refinery Limited (3). Disallowance

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

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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 Amount on Designatio Disallow which ment under of which n of the ance of the Order which the Excess the CIT (A) Excess Assess wherei Rema AY Assessme Depreci Order who had Depreci ment n the rks nt Order ation was passed the ation order Excess was disallo passed Appeal was was Depreci passed wed by CIT Order deleted

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

96,64,484/-. Subsequent to the search notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued and in compliance return was again submitted followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Similar was the case for AY 2012-13 for which original return was filed on 29.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. 15,83,850/- after claiming

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

96,64,484/-. Subsequent to the search notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued and in compliance return was again submitted followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Similar was the case for AY 2012-13 for which original return was filed on 29.09.2012 declaring income at Rs. 15,83,850/- after claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

96,11,395/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Duliajan. (v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for remand report from