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)

deduction of purchases is given, even though the purchases have been considered to be bogus. 8.6 Section 69C provides that

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

deductions under chapter VIA was reported Rs 13,02,740/-. 5. That the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny based on the details of non-filers to verify the genuineness of the purchases booked by the appellant. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) and requisition was issued on several occasions which were complied. 6. That finally, a Show Cause

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. BIRI KAKUM, ESS SECTOR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Response Given By The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition With The Following Finding:

bogus purchases on the part of the assessee and hence proceeded to verify the same. It is a matter of record that the assessee produced the books of accounts and other documents before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO was not satisfied with the response given by the assessee and made the impugned addition with the following finding: “3.8 Considering

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

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

bogus sundry creditors. Regarding the first ground, the Ld. AO has recorded a finding that the total sundry debtors shown by the assessee were amounting to Rs. 2,62,79,555/-, whereas after verification through issuance of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, the Ld. AO found that five such debtors had claimed that there was no outstanding against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

bogus, resulting in additional additions under section 69C. The assessee provided responses to the show cause notice, citing the pandemic's impact on individuals and emphasizing the deduction of TDS on payments. However, bills supporting the transactions were not provided, making it difficult to verify the genuineness of the expenses. The AO proceeded with the proposed additions under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Income Rs. 3,29,070/- 6. Ld. AO noted, “it is ascertained that during the financial year 2015-16 had made accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gains in the form of penny stock by way of trading in the scrips of M/s. Golden Bull Research & Growth Limited, Regency Trust

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

bogus revenue. In-fact the AO had accepted the revenue earned by the Appellant. It was also accepted by the learned Assessing Officer that the corresponding contract revenue was received by the Appellant through/in its bank and further TDS was also deducted by the contract awarding parties. (Copy of bank statement showing the same is enclosed with this submission) Hence

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

bogus revenue. In-fact the AO had accepted the revenue earned by the Appellant. It was also accepted by the learned Assessing Officer that the corresponding contract revenue was received by the Appellant through/in its bank and further TDS was also deducted by the contract awarding parties. (Copy of bank statement showing the same is enclosed with this submission) Hence

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

deducting this amount from the total addition of Rs.43,53,053/- confirmed the remaining amount of Rs.29,08,124/-. Apart from this, ld. CIT(A) enhanced the assessment by making an addition of Rs.6,99,98,011/-. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal observed and held as under: “In view of the above stated facts, the Appellant

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

deducting this amount from the total addition of Rs.43,53,053/- confirmed the remaining amount of Rs.29,08,124/-. Apart from this, ld. CIT(A) enhanced the assessment by making an addition of Rs.6,99,98,011/-. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal observed and held as under: “In view of the above stated facts, the Appellant

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account, we are of the view that this issue be remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 24. In the result, ITA Nos. 219/GAU/2019 is allowed

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account, we are of the view that this issue be remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 24. In the result, ITA Nos. 219/GAU/2019 is allowed

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account, we are of the view that this issue be remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 24. In the result, ITA Nos. 219/GAU/2019 is allowed

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years