SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

TDS certificate. The Assessing Officer also noted that the income of the assessee is exempt from tax on the ground of being a Member of Scheduled Tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. The Assessing Officer also estimated the transport income out of total transport contract receipts, at Rs.1,34,40,000/- after deducting all expenses by applying flat rate of 10%, which

ANUP DAS, GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS of ₹18,115/- was also made on other interest u/s 194A of the Act and as per the TCS statement, there were transactions of ₹3,16,24,266/-. As no return of income was filed for A.Y. 2016-17, therefore the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act but the assessee did not file any return of income

TRENISTONE D SANGMA,AMPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - GOALPARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

TDS-194C Payment to Rs. 3,12,257/- Contractor (194C) 3. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA portal for filing of return of income. However, no return was filed by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24.09.2021 asking

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26). 3. Claim for large exempt Income (Business ITR). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee from time to time asking to submit details as mentioned therein. The assessee

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26). 3. Claim for large exempt Income (Business ITR). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee from time to time asking to submit details as mentioned therein. The assessee

MRINAL DAS,BAKSA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS u/s 194A of the Act of Rs. 345/- was also deposited. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AO issued statutory notices to the assessee but no response was received nor any return was filed within 30 days of the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee however, filed

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

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

money in the hands of the subscribers was not explained and accordingly, the same treated as IT(SS)A Nos.1 to 7/GTY/2024 & 224/GTY/2024 Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 10-11, 12-13 to 17-18, 18-19 unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

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

unexplained expenditure etc. Hence from he above discussion, it is clear that section 153A of the Act can be invoked only if the Assessing Officer comes to a positive conclusion that he has in his possession documents or information revealing an Undisclosed asset of the assessee qua the assessment year (7th to 10th) which is valued Rs.50 lakhs or more

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

unexplained expenditure etc. Hence from he above discussion, it is clear that section 153A of the Act can be invoked only if the Assessing Officer comes to a positive conclusion that he has in his possession documents or information revealing an Undisclosed asset of the assessee qua the assessment year (7th to 10th) which is valued Rs.50 lakhs or more

SHRI KOMAL KUMBHAT,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.136/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Komal Kumbhat…………...................................................……Appellant 234, G.N.B Road, 2Nd Floor, Opposite Gauhati Club Bus Stand-Above Sarita Restaurant, Guwahati-781003. [Pan: Aedpk8036P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Guwahati...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri H. S. Kumbhat, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N. T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 25, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Guwahati-1, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Through Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated Two Issues I.E. (I) Addition Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee Of Rs.21,80,417/- Treating The Same As Bogus & Thereby Adding The Same

unexplained as to why the assessee would contact Shilpa Stock Brokers for purchasing off market shares of the penny stock company Kappac Pharma Ltd. The order of the Assessing Officer is well- elaborated order which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authorities on this issue

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

Unexplained Investment on account of bogus purchase…..”. vi. The Ld AO after giving proper opportunity to be heard and considering the submissions made by the appellant assessee went ahead and made the reasonable addition amounting to Rs 3,53,35,148/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Thus, the argument of the appellant in its ground no.-2 that