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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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

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

239 ITR 775 (SC) For the reasons aforesaid it was submitted by the AR that the benefit under 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

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