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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the audited Books of Accounts of the Appellant and disallowed the above expenses merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is further noted that the above disallowance is more on the basis

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

disallowed, but the Ld. AO has made addition under section 69C of the Act which relates to unexplained expenditure. On similar issue, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-5 v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. [2025] 172

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)

Section 263 of the Act by which the entire expenses were to be disallowed as bogus purchases. The decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shanti Swarup Jain [55 taxmann.com 378 (All)] also takes a similar view. In the case of Shoreline Hotel (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income

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)

Section 263 of the Act by which the entire expenses were to be disallowed as bogus purchases. The decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shanti Swarup Jain [55 taxmann.com 378 (All)] also takes a similar view. In the case of Shoreline Hotel (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income

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

172 ITR 250 while affirming the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that ‘the expression ‘INCOME’ as used in Section 69A of the Act, 1961 had a wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in gain and on this basis, concluded that the assessee had income which he had invested in purchasing article

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three funds i.e. from capital subsidy, equity and borrowing parked with the banks [short-term deposits (STD)] as income from other sources and it was brought to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) by passing the impugned order allowed partially the claim of assessee. We note that

M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. ,DIBRUGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three funds i.e. from capital subsidy, equity and borrowing parked with the banks [short-term deposits (STD)] as income from other sources and it was brought to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) by passing the impugned order allowed partially the claim of assessee. We note that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER & POLYMER LTD. , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

172 (SC), held that the entire interest income earned on all three funds i.e. from capital subsidy, equity and borrowing parked with the banks [short-term deposits (STD)] as income from other sources and it was brought to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) by passing the impugned order allowed partially the claim of assessee. We note that

M/S. MEGHMALLAR EASTATE & SERVICES (P) LTD.,,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), GUWAHATI

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowance of interest claimed by the Appellant with respect to the loan from North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd (NEDFI). The Appellant has stated that the loan availed by the Appellant from NEDFI was used by it for sourcing the FDRs. It was on these FDRs that the Appellant had earned interest income, which was duly appearing

M/S. MEGHMALLAR EASTATE & SERVICES (P) LTD.,,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), GUWAHATI

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowance of interest claimed by the Appellant with respect to the loan from North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd (NEDFI). The Appellant has stated that the loan availed by the Appellant from NEDFI was used by it for sourcing the FDRs. It was on these FDRs that the Appellant had earned interest income, which was duly appearing

M/S. MEGHMALLAR EASTATE & SERVICES (P) LTD.,,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), GUWAHATI

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

disallowance of interest claimed by the Appellant with respect to the loan from North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd (NEDFI). The Appellant has stated that the loan availed by the Appellant from NEDFI was used by it for sourcing the FDRs. It was on these FDRs that the Appellant had earned interest income, which was duly appearing