TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,TRIPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

disallowance to the extent of 30% only. Necessary computation to follow. This first substantive ground is taken as partly accepted in foregoing terms. 7. Next comes Section 69A unexplained money

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained Share Application Money u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 when the pre- conditions for such addition did not exist in the present case. 3. For that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate

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

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.

Unexplained money being Cash Deposits and normal business credits in Bank account in the matter and therefore the same is illegal and hence the same be deleted. 2) That the Assessment Order dated 26/12/2019 passed by the Ld. AO under section 144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee company for the Assessment year

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.

Unexplained money being Cash Deposits and normal business credits in Bank account in the matter and therefore the same is illegal and hence the same be deleted. 2) That the Assessment Order dated 26/12/2019 passed by the Ld. AO under section 144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee company for the Assessment year

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

disallowances be deleted. (7) For that in the facts and circumstance the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,70,00,000 made u/s 68 of the income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money

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

disallowances be deleted. (7) For that in the facts and circumstance the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,70,00,000 made u/s 68 of the income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money

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

disallowances be deleted. (7) For that in the facts and circumstance the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,70,00,000 made u/s 68 of the income tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money

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

unexplained expenditure under Sec.69C of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, this case has been misplaced by the Ld. CIT(A) and this citation of the Apex court is distinguishable in the preset case in hand. The Ld. CIT(A) has not gone through the facts of the case thoroughly and uphold the decision of the Ld. AO is not sustainable

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)

money on behalf of the said companies. Also, the Ld. AO found that there was no mention of any commission charged as a broker with respect to the alleged transactions on behalf of these companies. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee averred that the credit in all the bank accounts have been treated

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)

money on behalf of the said companies. Also, the Ld. AO found that there was no mention of any commission charged as a broker with respect to the alleged transactions on behalf of these companies. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee averred that the credit in all the bank accounts have been treated