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]

69A or 69B of the Act. So, therefore, according to Shri Dudhwewala, since the AO did not make any addition on account of escaped income represented in form of undisclosed/unaccounted asset, the AO could not have made any other addition, in respect of cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. For this, he relied on the ratio of the decisions

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

section 69A of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as the transactions are already recorded in the books of account and therefore bad in law. 7) That the aforesaid additions are arbitrary based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. 8) For that the additions / disallowances

ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ITO, WARD - 1, TINSUKIA

Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.

section 69A of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as the transactions are already recorded in the books of account and therefore bad in law. 7) That the aforesaid additions are arbitrary based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. 8) For that the additions / disallowances

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

69A of the Act. b. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and others Vs CIT, Bihar & Orissa, reported in 1964 AIR 697, dated 27/03/1963, held that the source of money not having been satisfactorily proved, the Department was justified in holding it to be assessable income of the assessee from some undisclosed source

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

disallowed by treating it as bogus and thereafter penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Regarding the A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA No. 227/Gty/2024) also, the LTCG claimed has been held to be bogus and on this the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. On a query from the Bench

PELHOUBEINUO SOPFII,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

section 10(26) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer observed that, the assessee could not substantiate its claim of cash deposits for Rs. 61,98,400/- and therefore, this amount of Rs. 61,98,400/- is disallowed and has added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A

FUNG PENG NAMCHOOM,CHOWKHAM vs. ITO, WARD - 1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

disallowed the agricultural income of Rs. 34,98,705/- citing lack of proper documentation and treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A, resulting in taxation u/s 115BBE of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the 3. learned CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 03.02.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld