COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ARIHANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

57,14,240/- declared in the return of income for AY 2009- 10 dated 30.09.2009. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Assessment was completed on 18.11.2011 assessing income at Rs. 1,76,63,830/- after making ad-hoc addition of Rs. 19,49,589/- towards

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. SINU SONTHALIA, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

57,321/- made in respect of following sundry creditors:- S.No. Name of sundry creditor Amount 1 M/s. Anurag Packaging 104,24,883 2 M/s. Maa Kamakhya Packaging 93,43,452 3 Alok Sonthalia 93,89,187 10. The provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, invoked by the ld. AO reads as follow:- Section 41(1): 41.(1) Where

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

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

57,500 shares of M/s. Pine Animations Ltd. were sold during the year @ Rs. 31.10/- & Rs. 73.68/- respectively and the same were purchased @ Rs. 10/- & Rs. 4.05 respectively. Exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act has been claimed on the long term capital gain arising from the said share transactions. The said claim of the assessees was rejected

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

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

57,500 shares of M/s. Pine Animations Ltd. were sold during the year @ Rs. 31.10/- & Rs. 73.68/- respectively and the same were purchased @ Rs. 10/- & Rs. 4.05 respectively. Exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act has been claimed on the long term capital gain arising from the said share transactions. The said claim of the assessees was rejected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - DIMAPUR , DIMAPUR vs. M/S. UDIPTA ENERGY & EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., ASSAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं. /Ita No. 45/Gau/2017 (Ǔ""ȡ[""""[/ Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Udipta Energy & Equipment Tax, Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C/O Phukan Nagar, Sivasagar, Assam-785640 (\ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/ Assessee) (Ĥ×"ȡ"Ȣ- / Respondent) .. È"ȡ"Ȣलेखासं./Pan No. Aaacu5559K \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ"Ȧओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Rabindro Singh, Jcit Ĥ×""ȸ"Ȧओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Uttam Kr. Borthakur, Advocate

purchase of tender till got the Letter of Award. And also for smooth running of business operation of the company, we had to incur a nominal amount towards business development. All the expenditure has been made on interest of the company. And accordingly we hereby produce the vouchers in respect of business promotion expenses for the F. Y2007

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

bogus or fictitious. Having regard to the foregoing facts, we thus find that the information contained in the referred document i.e. Pages 61 to 69 of the SST-01 was part of the regular books of the assessee and therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can be construed to be ‘incriminating’ in nature. 47. Moreover even