ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

195: (2008) 6 DTR (SC) 308. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the SLP filed by the Department challenging a Delhi High Court order in the matter of Section 68, has clearly expounded the following: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

1) of IT Act in absence of any finding that the books of account not found to be reliable for computation of income and therefore such additions cannot be sustained in law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the aggregate additions of Rs.2

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

1) of IT Act in absence of any finding that the books of account not found to be reliable for computation of income and therefore such additions cannot be sustained in law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the aggregate additions of Rs.2

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68-107 of Additional Paper Book). Relevant para of the Ld. CIT(A) order is reproduced below: “10.3.1 The point to be decided boils down to whether assessee's receipt on account of Central Excise Duty Refund is capital receipt or not. From the notes to audited accounts, it is seen that the assessee was enjoying Central Excise duty exemption

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

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

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

195, the question asked was what constitutes a new industrial undertaking which is eligible for deduction under Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding provision is 80J and 84). The Supreme Court pointed out at page 204 that a new industrial undertaking should be separate physically from than the old one, the capital of which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. SHRI SATYAJIT SAHA, AGARTALA

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

1. This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee. ITA No. 190/Gty/2019 is the main appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to AY 2014-15; the CO No. 07/Gty/2019 has been filed by the assessee mainly in support of the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 2. Both these appeals arise

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,135/- was raised on account of tax (charged u/s 115BBE) &interest (u/s 234A, B & C) on the appellant. 10. That further proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAD(1((i) and 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 was also initiated on the very same date.” 3.1 Thus, as against the returned income