JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

251(2). 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in issuing directions.” 3. The issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the part confirmation of addition of Rs.29,08,124/- by Ld. CIT(A) out of total addition made by the AO of Rs.43,53,053/-. The facts in brief are that assessee filed return

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

251(2). 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in issuing directions.” 3. The issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the part confirmation of addition of Rs.29,08,124/- by Ld. CIT(A) out of total addition made by the AO of Rs.43,53,053/-. The facts in brief are that assessee filed return

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2010-11 dated 27.08.2018, I.T.A. No.: 358/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Accrecent Way Marketing Private Limited. which has been passed against the assessment order passed by the u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2013. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising