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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR vs. ROHIT KUMAR GULGULIA, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

40 for completion of assessment were not confronted to the assessee, since the material available with the AO for disclosure to the assessee was only the confessional statement recorded on oath under section 131 if the LT. Act, 1961 in course of survey operation under section 133A of the said act and such confession was made by the assessee

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

40,000/- has been made. There cannot be any doubt about this liability. The assessee has claimed this provision as a deduction. It was under the impression that this provision is allowed. Therefore, it took this amount to the work-in-progress, which is to be sold in Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited

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

40,000/- has been made. There cannot be any doubt about this liability. The assessee has claimed this provision as a deduction. It was under the impression that this provision is allowed. Therefore, it took this amount to the work-in-progress, which is to be sold in Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited

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

40,000/- has been made. There cannot be any doubt about this liability. The assessee has claimed this provision as a deduction. It was under the impression that this provision is allowed. Therefore, it took this amount to the work-in-progress, which is to be sold in Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

40. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Name of this assessee is not available in the Panchnama and, therefore, it is construed that no search was carried out upon him and if no search was carried out upon him, then, no 153A could be passed. The opening line of section 153A as reproduced

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

40. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Name of this assessee is not available in the Panchnama and, therefore, it is construed that no search was carried out upon him and if no search was carried out upon him, then, no 153A could be passed. The opening line of section 153A as reproduced

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

40. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Name of this assessee is not available in the Panchnama and, therefore, it is construed that no search was carried out upon him and if no search was carried out upon him, then, no 153A could be passed. The opening line of section 153A as reproduced

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

40. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Name of this assessee is not available in the Panchnama and, therefore, it is construed that no search was carried out upon him and if no search was carried out upon him, then, no 153A could be passed. The opening line of section 153A as reproduced

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

40. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Name of this assessee is not available in the Panchnama and, therefore, it is construed that no search was carried out upon him and if no search was carried out upon him, then, no 153A could be passed. The opening line of section 153A as reproduced