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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

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

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

274 ITR 379. This view has been supported in catena of judicial decisions. 104 ITR 101 (Cal) at page 104 120 ITR 110 (Cal) at page 120 190 ITR 553 (All) at pages 555 (C) Regarding the assertions of the AO that the undertaking has been formed by transfer of assets, the AR submitted that the assessee has not transferred

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

68 and 69 of the paper book which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the ld. Addl. CIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

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

274/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Duliajan. (v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for remand report from the AO which

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

274/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Duliajan. (v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for remand report from the AO which

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

274/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Duliajan. (v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for remand report from the AO which

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

274/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Duliajan. (v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for remand report from the AO which

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

274/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at Duliajan. (v) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences without calling for remand report from the AO which