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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act b) Addition on account of Long Term - Rs.2,58,69,249/- Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed as exemption u/s. 10(38) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) c) Disallowance of loss from trading - Rs.20,22,293/- in commodity and F&O derivatives 2.2. In the addition and disallowance at (a) and (b) above

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

money in the hands of the subscribers was not explained and accordingly, the same treated as IT(SS)A Nos.1 to 7/GTY/2024 & 224/GTY/2024 Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 10-11, 12-13 to 17-18, 18-19 unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

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

unexplained cash credit in their books which could be charged to income tax in the previous year in question? We find on scrutiny of paragraphs 10 and 10.2 of the order of the tribunal that questions of fact and evidence were discussed and adjudicated upon by it. We set out paragraphs 10 and 10.2 of the impugned order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

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

unexplained cash credit in their books which could be charged to income tax in the previous year in question? We find on scrutiny of paragraphs 10 and 10.2 of the order of the tribunal that questions of fact and evidence were discussed and adjudicated upon by it. We set out paragraphs 10 and 10.2 of the impugned order

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered office of M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. at Knowledge Hub, DN - 23, 2nd Floor, Sector - V, Salt Lake, Kolkata

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered office of M/s ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. at Knowledge Hub, DN - 23, 2nd Floor, Sector - V, Salt Lake, Kolkata

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH vs. SANTOSH BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 104/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 34/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central, North-East Region, Guwahati (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/07/2023, Passed U/S

unexplained cash credit. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee got relief on the ground that no incriminating material were found during the course of search pertaining to the alleged transaction giving rise to alleged long term capital gain and since the year under consideration is Assessment Year 2012-13 and the time limit to select the case

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

unexplainedly s with unexplainedly “weak fundamentals” such as SRK Industries Ltd and Surabhi “weak fundamentals” such as SRK Industries Ltd and Surabhi “weak fundamentals” such as SRK Industries Ltd and Surabhi Chemicals. On the other hand, it must also be noted that some of the Chemicals. On the other hand, it must also be noted that some of the Chemicals