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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

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

disallowed which is not justified. An amount was paid to GMC and though it was a penalty but it was incurred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, LUMJINGSHAI, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of two amounts (i) an amount of Rs 6,31,275/- In respect of disallowances

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

disallowance of Rs.67,993 oh account of penalty on Tax deducted source. Such expenses was allowable in law and hence

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

disallowance of Rs.67,993 oh account of penalty on Tax deducted source. Such expenses was allowable in law and hence

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

disallowance of Rs.67,993 oh account of penalty on Tax deducted source. Such expenses was allowable in law and hence

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In this case, A.Y. 2014-15 concerns the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In this case, A.Y. 2014-15 concerns the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In this case, A.Y. 2014-15 concerns the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed on account of certain penny stocks which were under adverse notice by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The LTCG claimed was disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA VALLEY FERTILIZER CORPORATION LIMITED, DIBRUGARH

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The assessee replied vide letter dated 13.12.2010 submitting that the penal interest is not in the nature of penalty

ARUNACHAL POLICE HOUSING & WELFARE CORPORATION LIMITED,PAPUMPARE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble

disallowing the exemption claimed under section 10(26B). Assessee paid the demand raised thereon of Rs.45,27,145/-. 2.2. Penalty

FAIYAZ AHMED,GAURIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of unverified misc. expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 8,63,51,643/-. Penalty

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

disallowed and added back to the total income, on account of cessation of liabilities appearing in its accounts as on 31.03.2012 or write off of sundry creditors. For furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, penalty