JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as Sundry Creditors) and further enhancement of Rs. 6,80,71,300/- u/s 41(1) read with section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. RAMSWARUP BAJAJ, ASSAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

67 and 68\nand 69 of the Id. CIT (A), wherein in paragraph 3 to 5 the Id. CIT (A)\nhas held as follows:-\n\"3. That, no enquiry seems to have been conducted by the Investigation wing (i.e. during\nthe course of post search investigation) or by the AO (i.e. during the course of the\nassessment proceedings) with

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

section 133A of the. I.T. Act, 1961 on 07.04.2015 by the DDIT flnv), Kolkata wherein he has stated that various paper companies controlled and managed by different entry operators are trading in different penny stocks including the scrip of M/s CCL International Ltd. through broking firms for providing accommodation entries in the form of Long Term Capital Gain to various

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

section 133A of the. I.T. Act, 1961 on 07.04.2015 by the DDIT flnv), Kolkata wherein he has stated that various paper companies controlled and managed by different entry operators are trading in different penny stocks including the scrip of M/s CCL International Ltd. through broking firms for providing accommodation entries in the form of Long Term Capital Gain to various

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

section 133A of the. I.T. Act, 1961 on 07.04.2015 by the DDIT flnv), Kolkata wherein he has stated that various paper companies controlled and managed by different entry operators are trading in different penny stocks including the scrip of M/s CCL International Ltd. through broking firms for providing accommodation entries in the form of Long Term Capital Gain to various

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

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

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 251 of the I.T. Act in the case of the Appellant. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 195/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Picklu Paul. 5. For that the Appellant craves leave to take up any further ground or grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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

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

67,008). The same also agrees with calculation of CIF value from assessable value as stated earlier. Therefore, the CIF value of 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

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

67,270/- Income from House Property Rs. (-)88,200/- Gross total Income Rs. 4,79,070/- 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

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

67 (sixty seven) other companies. I.T.A. No.: 358/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Accrecent Way Marketing Private Limited. d. Sunil Kumar Jain, Director of (i) M/s Tulip Goods Private Limited, (ii) Srinu Vnimay Private Limited (iii) Improve Vintrade P Limited and (iv) Sreeyukta Mercantile Pvt limited is a Director in 8(eight) other companies. 3.3 According

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

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

section 69C relates to the source of the expenditure which is M/s Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd. unexplained, and that it is a deeming provision and not about whether the expenditure incurred relates to business or not. We note that the Expenditure of Rs. 17,32,595/- on account of business are either made by cash or cheque which