DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 10(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and whether the assessee will be entitled to depreciation allowances and development rebate with reference to such interest also. The Court held that the accepted accountancy rule for determining cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 10(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and whether the assessee will be entitled to depreciation allowances and development rebate with reference to such interest also. The Court held that the accepted accountancy rule for determining cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 10(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and whether the assessee will be entitled to depreciation allowances and development rebate with reference to such interest also. The Court held that the accepted accountancy rule for determining cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property at the time of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on the basis of some documents related to the rental income, which were found and seized during the course of the search which was subsequently I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. disclosed in the return of income filed in response

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property at the time of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on the basis of some documents related to the rental income, which were found and seized during the course of the search which was subsequently I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. disclosed in the return of income filed in response

SUBHASH CHAND CHORARIA,GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property, most of which was received by cheque and interest on bank deposits and the miscellaneous receipts. It was submitted that the entire cash in hand was tax paid income and there is no limit even under the I.T. Act or any other law as to how much money could be withdrawn and kept at home

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI RATAN SHARMA , GUWAHATI

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

section 131 of the Income Act 1961 on 17.04.2013 in reply to question no. 26 had also stated that the investment in M//s Platinum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was made by his group/associates. He further stated that all the investments made were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It will, thus, be clear that the entire funds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI RATAN SHARMA , GUWAHATI

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

section 131 of the Income Act 1961 on 17.04.2013 in reply to question no. 26 had also stated that the investment in M//s Platinum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was made by his group/associates. He further stated that all the investments made were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It will, thus, be clear that the entire funds

SHRI RATAN SHARMA ,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

section 131 of the Income Act 1961 on 17.04.2013 in reply to question no. 26 had also stated that the investment in M//s Platinum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was made by his group/associates. He further stated that all the investments made were duly recorded in the books of accounts. It will, thus, be clear that the entire funds

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]

house. Rather, it is with respect to transit flats given to the employees on transfers. The manufacturing activities of the assesse are such a place where it is difficult to find out any space to stay. The employees have to stay in the gardens where certain space is mandatory for the assessee to maintain. After considering the finding

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]

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 13. From a reading of the aforesaid fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act, it can be seen that the expression used by the Parliament, while enlarging the power of the AO to extend the jurisdiction u/s. 153A/153C of the Act from

CARBON SPECIALITIES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Carbon Specialities Limited Dcit, Circle-2, Guwahati 53/10, Naya Ganj, Kanpur, Vs. Uttar Pradesh-208001. Pan: Aaacc 7924 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.P. Bhati, Fca Respondent By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Acit. Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement :.. 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Ay 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Rs. 8,44,556/- By Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Ao U/S 14A Of The Act Relating To Earning Of Exempt Income.

section 14A of the Act and made a disallowance of Rs. 13,01,126/- comprising Rs. 3,60,365/- under Rule 8D(2)(i)& Rs. 9,40,461/- under Rule 8D(iii) in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.03.2015. In the appellate proceeding, ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the relief by sustaining

AFSANA BEGUM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property situated at C-97, South Extension Part-Il, New Delhi jointly with her husband Sri. S.K. Datta for a consideration of ₹13,00,00,000/- (assessee’s investment share being 50% of the consideration). The assessee had submitted that the sources for the investment was out of housing loan availed from SBI jointly with her husband for an amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. BATH AND SANITARY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

house property was sold in 2001 and the payment for the same was received by draft and cheque in January/February 2001. This receipt was also about three and half years prior to the cash introduction of Rs. 6, 20, 000/- in the assessee firm. From this it can be seen that the assessee has failed to explain the immediate source

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

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

13(1)of the Act. 3.3.6 The provision of section 80-AC is very clear. It speaks of return being filed within time allowed u/s 139(1). It does not say anything about section 139(4). A claim of deduction has to be filed within a specified period. The period prescribed is within time allowed u/s 139(1). Assessee

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

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

13(1)of the Act. 3.3.6 The provision of section 80-AC is very clear. It speaks of return being filed within time allowed u/s 139(1). It does not say anything about section 139(4). A claim of deduction has to be filed within a specified period. The period prescribed is within time allowed u/s 139(1). Assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

House South West Delhi New Delhi – 110037 PAN : AAACK3691G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vivek Malhotra, FCA Department By: Soumendu Sekhar Das, JCIT Date of Hearing: 30.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28 .01.2025 ORDER PER MANOMOHAN DAS, JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central, North Eastern Region, Guwahati (hereinafter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), GUWAHATI vs. PRAG RAJ SINGLA, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

House No. 31, Shiva Niwas, 1stByelane, Ajanta Path, Survey, Beltala, Guwahati-781028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOGPS 3670 G (Assessee) .. (Revenue) Assesseeby : Shri Sandip Sengupta, JCIT DR Respondent by : Shri B. L. Purohit FCA & Shri Subash Purohit, FCA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 15/05/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/08/2019 आदेश