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

purchase claimed by the assessee against the parties were bogus. The PCIT referred to Section 69C of the Act and pointed out that once it is established that the expenditure is unexplained/bogus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure is to be I.T.A. No.: 266/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rishi Agarwal. added to the total income of the assessee. Reliance

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

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

purchases through LCS, Agartala should be Rs. 15,02,40,765/- and not Rs. 13,89,81,195/-.” 2.2 The revenue has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief on account of excess sundry debtors. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred granting relief on account

ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

195: (2008) 6 DTR (SC) 308. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the SLP filed by the Department challenging a Delhi High Court order in the matter of Section 68, has clearly expounded the following: "Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find