MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained credits." 7.2. In the written submission, it was stated that the difference had arisen due to pending reconciliation of account with sister concerns. It was argued that such difference should not have any impact in the income. 7.3. I have considered the matter. Assessee's liability shown in the account is more by Rs. 58,48,88,574/- then

MEGHALAYA POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained credits." 7.2. In the written submission, it was stated that the difference had arisen due to pending reconciliation of account with sister concerns. It was argued that such difference should not have any impact in the income. 7.3. I have considered the matter. Assessee's liability shown in the account is more by Rs. 58,48,88,574/- then

MEGHALAYA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained credits." 7.2. In the written submission, it was stated that the difference had arisen due to pending reconciliation of account with sister concerns. It was argued that such difference should not have any impact in the income. 7.3. I have considered the matter. Assessee's liability shown in the account is more by Rs. 58,48,88,574/- then

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. M/S. MACIL PROJECTS (P) LIMITED, BYRNIHAT

The appeal stand dismissed

unexplained investment for Rs.120.11 Lacs and another disallowance of Rs.35.56 Lacs. 5. During appellate proceedings, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction

DIVYAMALA PRAKASH,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Divyamala Prakash Ito, Ward-1, Tezpur Flat No. 6A, Syndicate Marble, Six Vs. Mile Radhanagar, Guwahati-784036. Pan: Bpmpp 6934 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

disallowed the setting off loss of Rs. 1,00,572/- against the income from business or profession. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and assessee had made detailed submission along with filing additional evidence in support of her contention. The assessee has filed its submission before the ld. CIT(A) which

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]

investments held in shares by the assessee found to be unaccounted/undisclosed nor was its source of acquisition disputed or held to be unexplained by the AO. We therefore find ourselves in agreement with Shri Dudhwewala that, unless the AO made addition/s of Rs. 50 Lakhs or more in relation to escaped/undisclosed asset, he could not assume jurisdiction to make addition/s

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

Unexplained Investment on account of bogus purchase…..”. vi. The Ld AO after giving proper opportunity to be heard and considering the submissions made by the appellant assessee went ahead and made the reasonable addition amounting to Rs 3,53,35,148/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Thus, the argument of the appellant in its ground no.-2 that

SHRI KOMAL KUMBHAT,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.136/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Komal Kumbhat…………...................................................……Appellant 234, G.N.B Road, 2Nd Floor, Opposite Gauhati Club Bus Stand-Above Sarita Restaurant, Guwahati-781003. [Pan: Aedpk8036P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Guwahati...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri H. S. Kumbhat, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N. T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 25, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Guwahati-1, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Through Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated Two Issues I.E. (I) Addition Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee Of Rs.21,80,417/- Treating The Same As Bogus & Thereby Adding The Same

disallowance of long-term capital loss of Rs.52,80,893/-. 3. First issue – The Assessing Officer made the impugned addition observing that the assessee has claimed long-term capital gain on the sale of scrip namely Kappac Pharma Ltd. which was recognised as a penny stock by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Assessing Officer from

BAGDEVI SUPPLIERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained share application money. This issue was agitated before the ld. Principal Chief Commissioner, who remitted this issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer and after going through this submission of the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition of this amount in the assessment order dated 09.05.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money was uncalled for, unjustified and thus the same be deleted. (8) For that in the facts and circumstance of this case the material based on which the Ld Assessment Officer passed the assessment order are collected behind the back of the assessee and which were not provided during

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money was uncalled for, unjustified and thus the same be deleted. (8) For that in the facts and circumstance of this case the material based on which the Ld Assessment Officer passed the assessment order are collected behind the back of the assessee and which were not provided during

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money was uncalled for, unjustified and thus the same be deleted. (8) For that in the facts and circumstance of this case the material based on which the Ld Assessment Officer passed the assessment order are collected behind the back of the assessee and which were not provided during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained in the hands of the assessee. This view has been taken in the following cases: (i) Principal C.I.T. vs. Soft-line Creations Pvt. Ltd. (2016)387 R 636 (Delhi) (ii) C.I.T. vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) (iii) C.I.T. vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 319 ITR (St.) 5 (S.C.) 320 (iv) C.I.T. vs. Sameer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

unexplained in the hands of the assessee. This view has been taken in the following cases: (i) Principal C.I.T. vs. Soft-line Creations Pvt. Ltd. (2016)387 R 636 (Delhi) (ii) C.I.T. vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) (iii) C.I.T. vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 319 ITR (St.) 5 (S.C.) 320 (iv) C.I.T. vs. Sameer

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity

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

unexplained expenditure.” 23. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished the copies of the corresponding ledger accounts. The assessee had also explained to ld. AO that, owing to multiple sites especially in remote areas of North-Eastern India and owing to lack of competent staff at such sites, there is no uniformity