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

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

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)

disallowance of purchases of Rs.86,47,78,624/-ignoring the submission of appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.86,66,86,730/- being difference in purchases as per books and figures reported in GST ignoring the reconciliation submitted with evidences on record

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)

disallowance of purchases of Rs.86,47,78,624/-ignoring the submission of appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.86,66,86,730/- being difference in purchases as per books and figures reported in GST ignoring the reconciliation submitted with evidences on record

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]

3) of the Act had already been completed on 24-12-2018 and therefore on the date of search i.e. 05-12-2019, the income tax assessment for AY 2011-12 stood unabated. 33. We note that Section 153A/153C of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1-6-2003. It replaced the provisions relating to block assessment

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

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

172 taxmann.com 283 (Bombay), Hon'ble Bombay High Court have upheld the addition made under section 69C on account of bogus purchases. However, the fact remains that no adverse action was taken against the supplies whether GST authorities. The facts are not known in this regard. Since the assessee is a manufacturing concern, the production record ought to have been

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]

3. That the Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, is not legally justified directing the AO to review the Share Premium Account which is not the dispute in the Assessment Order which was appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2. 5. Ground no.3 since not being pressed by the assessee which is regarding directions given

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]

3. That the Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, is not legally justified directing the AO to review the Share Premium Account which is not the dispute in the Assessment Order which was appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2. 5. Ground no.3 since not being pressed by the assessee which is regarding directions given

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]

3. That the Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, is not legally justified directing the AO to review the Share Premium Account which is not the dispute in the Assessment Order which was appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2. 5. Ground no.3 since not being pressed by the assessee which is regarding directions given

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]

3,83,20,744 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2012-13 26.09.2012 36,72,800 12,09,17,580 53,87,131 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2013-14 27.09.2013 Nil 20,48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer

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]

3,83,20,744 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2012-13 26.09.2012 36,72,800 12,09,17,580 53,87,131 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2013-14 27.09.2013 Nil 20,48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer

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]

3,83,20,744 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2012-13 26.09.2012 36,72,800 12,09,17,580 53,87,131 Nil (interest income from deposit of loans and equity) 2013-14 27.09.2013 Nil 20,48,28,383 1,83,76,52,004 Nil ITA Nos. 94 to 97/Gau/2018 ITA No. 101/Gau/2019 & Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer