DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

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

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the above subsidies were not derived from the appellant's manufacturing activities.” 16. The above finding of ld. CIT(A) take note of all relevant details which are generally required to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. So far the identity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

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

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the above subsidies were not derived from the appellant's manufacturing activities.” 16. The above finding of ld. CIT(A) take note of all relevant details which are generally required to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. So far the identity

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing the claim raised before her. 1. The following additional ground was raised before the Hon'ble CIT(A) during the course of the appeal: "That Membership fees Rs. 5,11,68,800/- shown under the head other Income (Sch. 15 of Profit & Loss Account) which was liability of Company for Advance received from members against Service & FMCG Product

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

1 (SC) and Roshan-Di-hatti Vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938, Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254, PCIT Vs. Sreeleathers (2022) 448 ITR 332. 3.4. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is bad in law even on the ground of violation of natural justice. The ld. AR submitted that