ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

disallowed by the A.O. The CIT(A)-16, Kolkata had deleted the addition and allowed depreciation at higher rate in A.Y.2009-10. Thus, clearly shows that the assessee in past assessment orders, have also been claimed depreciation at higher rate. The contention of the A.O., that explanation given is an afterthought, which is offered only after discovery of excess depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

disallowed by the A.O. The CIT(A)-16, Kolkata had deleted the addition and allowed depreciation at higher rate in A.Y.2009-10. Thus, clearly shows that the assessee in past assessment orders, have also been claimed depreciation at higher rate. The contention of the A.O., that explanation given is an afterthought, which is offered only after discovery of excess depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

disallowed by the A.O. The CIT(A)-16, Kolkata had deleted the addition and allowed depreciation at higher rate in A.Y.2009-10. Thus, clearly shows that the assessee in past assessment orders, have also been claimed depreciation at higher rate. The contention of the A.O., that explanation given is an afterthought, which is offered only after discovery of excess depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

disallowed by the A.O. The CIT(A)-16, Kolkata had deleted the addition and allowed depreciation at higher rate in A.Y.2009-10. Thus, clearly shows that the assessee in past assessment orders, have also been claimed depreciation at higher rate. The contention of the A.O., that explanation given is an afterthought, which is offered only after discovery of excess depreciation

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

reopening is beyond 4 years from the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. As, we have discussed and decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee and the re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, itself has attained nullity, the grounds on merits are only academic in nature and the same are not dealt

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

reopening is beyond 4 years from the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. As, we have discussed and decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee and the re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, itself has attained nullity, the grounds on merits are only academic in nature and the same are not dealt

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

reopening is beyond 4 years from the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. As, we have discussed and decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee and the re-assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, itself has attained nullity, the grounds on merits are only academic in nature and the same are not dealt

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

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

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

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

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

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

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

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]

reopening u/s. 147 of the Act, however the ratio decidendi will apply in the present case, because, like Section 147/148 of the Act, the AO gets the authority to assess/reassess the income of a searched person or other person u/s 153A/153C for the extended assessment years (7th to 10th AYs) only if he has in his possession the jurisdictional fact

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that an information was received from DIT (Investigation) that during a search conducted in case of a group of companies, it was found that assessee had obtained accommodation entries in nature of unsecured loans through two 8 I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 33/GTY/2024 Amit Kumar paper/shell companies, impugned reopening notice issued against

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that an information was received from DIT (Investigation) that during a search conducted in case of a group of companies, it was found that assessee had obtained accommodation entries in nature of unsecured loans through two 8 I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 33/GTY/2024 Amit Kumar paper/shell companies, impugned reopening notice issued against

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

disallowances which the assessing officer may take while framing the assessment order u/s 153A/153C and other anomalies found in the records seized by you. The difference amount of Rs. 15,92,03,491/-calculated by you might be due to the GST amount included in the total sales." 26. That Sir thereafter while filing returns u/s 153C we have disclosed

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

disallowances which the assessing officer may take while framing the assessment order u/s 153A/153C and other anomalies found in the records seized by you. The difference amount of Rs. 15,92,03,491/-calculated by you might be due to the GST amount included in the total sales." 26. That Sir thereafter while filing returns u/s 153C we have disclosed

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

disallowances which the assessing officer may take while framing the assessment order u/s 153A/153C and other anomalies found in the records seized by you. The difference amount of Rs. 15,92,03,491/-calculated by you might be due to the GST amount included in the total sales." 26. That Sir thereafter while filing returns u/s 153C we have disclosed