MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

section 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2023. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- Manoj Anand; A.Y. 2018-19 “The sole issue involved in the appellant's appeal is that during the relevant previous year the appellant

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

disallowed as per section 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(8) of the Act and show cause notice was issued to the assessee against the show cause notice, the assessee filed reply on 13.03.2025 explaining the reason for eligibility of deduction u/s 80IE of the Act with documentary evidences . The AO after considering the entire submissions/reply/documents furnished by the assessee. He assessed

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

144B of the Act, dated 21.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in interpreting the provisions of Sec.69C of the IT Act, 1961, holding the third-party statement collected by the investigating wing of the department as concrete evidence

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)

144B of IT Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.12,95,07,714/- u/s 69C/69A rws 115BBE of IT Act treating the aggregate amounts of credit entries in the bank accounts

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)

144B of IT Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.12,95,07,714/- u/s 69C/69A rws 115BBE of IT Act treating the aggregate amounts of credit entries in the bank accounts

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the 1. T. Act, 1961 (Act) is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. i) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in arbitrarily confirming the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 3,53,35,148/- by invoking provisions of section 69C of the Act. ii) For that in absence