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

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

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

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

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

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

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

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

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

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

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

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

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

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

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

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

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

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68,972/-. 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee has submitted that it is a ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited in the books of ABCL Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. The assessee got contracts from three companies, namely Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai, Coastal Projects Limited, Hyderabad; Horizon Infrastructure Limited. These were sub-contracted on back

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68,972/-. 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee has submitted that it is a ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited in the books of ABCL Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. The assessee got contracts from three companies, namely Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai, Coastal Projects Limited, Hyderabad; Horizon Infrastructure Limited. These were sub-contracted on back

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Act b) Addition on account of Long Term - Rs.2,58,69,249/- Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed as exemption u/s. 10(38) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) c) Disallowance of loss from trading - Rs.20,22,293/- in commodity and F&O derivatives 2.2. In the addition and disallowance at (a) and (b) above, revenue is in appeal

ARECA GLOBAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The

68,39,923/- was made as business income. Before the I.T.A. No. 22/GTY/2025 Areca Global Associates Private Limited Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the appeal was filed with a delay of 179 days, admittedly without any petition seeking condonation of the said delay. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following findings and dismissed the appeal

JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250 of Rs. 68,00,000/- CIT(A) NFAC Time Deposit u/s 68 of the Act Tax to be Charged as special Rate u/s 115BBE of the Act as Income from Other Sources 3. Contract Business: Rs. 1,25,345/- SSK Infrastructure Rs. 13,71,867/-, TVASTAR Infratech Pvt Ltd Rs. 1,25,345/- Total

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 confirming the addition of 249,10,958 made by the ITO, Tinsukia in the case of the Appellant for A.Y. 2014-15, because the addition made by the Ld. ITO is not sustainable on merits. 5. That

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 confirming the addition of 249,10,958 made by the ITO, Tinsukia in the case of the Appellant for A.Y. 2014-15, because the addition made by the Ld. ITO is not sustainable on merits. 5. That

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 confirming the addition of 249,10,958 made by the ITO, Tinsukia in the case of the Appellant for A.Y. 2014-15, because the addition made by the Ld. ITO is not sustainable on merits. 5. That

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. ASSAM TEA INDUSTRIES, JORHAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawalm.A. No. 2/Gty/2020 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.: 67/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-Jorhat, Assam......................................................Appellant Vs. M/S. Assam Tea Industries....................................................Respondent [Pan: Aakfa 4866 A]

68,84,814-43,99,565 = Rs. 24,85,249/-” 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. We find it proper to recall the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT pronounced on 23.08.2019 along with the Cross Objection, considering the claim of tax effect of Rs. 70,88,430/- claimed