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)

6. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that the Ld. AO conducted some enquiries for AY 2021-22 and for AY 2017-18, and the assessee is nowhere seen to have pointed out for AY 2017-18 that all the accounts did not belong to him. In this manner, the Ld. DR supported

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

6 years preceding the search but not for the year of search or requisition and thus no return is required to be filed for the year of search us. 153A of the Act Only regular return u/s 139 to be filed First proviso is reiteration of the provision containing clause (b) of section 153A (1) of the Act that

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

6 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. expenses in the nature of amortisation of lease rental is allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act? Section 37(1) of the Act provides that any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections

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

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

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

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

6) of the Act, the Ld. AO found that five such debtors had claimed that there was no outstanding against their name vis-à-vis the assessee. The Ld. AO proceeded to add the impugned amount in regard to excess sundry debtors. Regarding the second addition, the Ld. AO has recorded a finding that from the accounts of the assessee