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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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

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

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. 4

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. 4

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]

4. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for AY 2012-13 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, is legally not justified treating the interest income received from the Fixed Deposit created out of the loan Fund received from NEDFI. Hence, the impugned order in Appeal is not sustainable in law and liable

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]

4. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for AY 2012-13 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, is legally not justified treating the interest income received from the Fixed Deposit created out of the loan Fund received from NEDFI. Hence, the impugned order in Appeal is not sustainable in law and liable

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]

4. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for AY 2012-13 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, is legally not justified treating the interest income received from the Fixed Deposit created out of the loan Fund received from NEDFI. Hence, the impugned order in Appeal is not sustainable in law and liable

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