MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

144(3) dated 30.12.2019. 05. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A), after discussing the assessment order, came to the conclusion that the addition was rightly made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained share capital/ share premium when assessee or authorized representative failed to attend the appellate proceedings on behalf of the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED, (GPF TRUST),SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

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

144 of the Act dated 23.11.2015. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. As regards ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue is concerned stating that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of disallowance made by ld. AO disallowing loss on trading of F & O (Derivatives) at Rs. 4,08,99,275/- assessing

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)

section 147 of the Act, as the 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

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)

section 147 of the Act, as the 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

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)

section 147 of the Act, as the 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

MIZORAM RURAL BANK,AIZAWL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE SHILLONG

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

Bench: The Itat With The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

144 of the Act mainly on the ground that the assessee did not, allegedly, furnish the details as required by the Ld. AO from time to time. The Ld. AO made several additions in this case. This matter was carried over to the Ld. CIT(A), who gave partial relief, but confirmed the action of Ld. AO with respect

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, TINSUKIA

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee company for the Assessment year 2017-18 at Rs. 92,88,618/- is perverse, against law and facts on record 3) That the impugned assessment order dated 26th December, 2019 passed by the Ld. AO is liable to be quashed, since it has been passed in haste without application

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee company for the Assessment year 2017-18 at Rs. 92,88,618/- is perverse, against law and facts on record 3) That the impugned assessment order dated 26th December, 2019 passed by the Ld. AO is liable to be quashed, since it has been passed in haste without application

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

disallowances\nmade by the AO to the extent sustained in appeals (ii) an amount of Rs.2,98,51,729/-\nwhich the AO had held as wrongly claimed loss in the belated Return filed u/s 139(4). I\nfind that the appellant has pressed for the grounds related to the second amount only.\nIt has been submitted by the appellant

RI-BHOI ISPAT & ROLLING MILLS,BYRNIHAT vs. ITO, WARD- BYRNIHAT, BYRNIHAT

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 70." Since tax invoice as per Rule 27 and Rule 29 "cannot be said to be proving the actual physical movement of the good"; However, Hon'ble Supreme Court adds that while the tax invoice and cheque can be said to be proving one of I.T.A. No.: 241/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 RI-BHOI Ispat & Rolling Mills. the documents

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

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 of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

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

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 of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

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

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 of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly