SHRI ABDUL HANNAN,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TINSUKIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction

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

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

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

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

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

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

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

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

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

68,92,698/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Sivasagar. (iii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/disallowance Page 4 of 27 I.T.A. Nos.: 318 & 319/Gau/2018

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings. Subsequently re-assessment proceedings were initiated and reasons were recorded for reopening and the said reasons were only to examine the amount received by the assessee-company towards share capital and share premium. The ld. D.R. failed to rebut this fact that the issues, which have been thoroughly examined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings. Subsequently re-assessment proceedings were initiated and reasons were recorded for reopening and the said reasons were only to examine the amount received by the assessee-company towards share capital and share premium. The ld. D.R. failed to rebut this fact that the issues, which have been thoroughly examined

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

deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the following subsidies: (i) Transport Subsidy: Rs.7,12,77,865/- The above disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the above subsidies were not derived from the appellant's manufacturing activities.” 16. The above finding of ld. CIT(A) take note of all relevant details which

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

deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the following subsidies: (i) Transport Subsidy: Rs.7,12,77,865/- The above disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the above subsidies were not derived from the appellant's manufacturing activities.” 16. The above finding of ld. CIT(A) take note of all relevant details which

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10

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

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

Section 80IB for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and benefit u/s. 80IC for the assessments years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are to be allowed.” 5. Learned senior standing counsel seeks us to treat the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.120/Gau/2008 for assessment year 2003-04 as the “lead” case raising the following substantive grounds:- ITA No.120-123/G/2008 & 87/G/10