M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

71,78,703 6 31.03.2009 124,10,35,109 7 31.03.2010 130,32,47,966 8 31.03.2011 136,01,89,749 9 31.03.2012 141,38,93,166 4.1 Despite showing high amount as sundry creditors in its Balance Sheet over the years, the assessee has not even furnished details of same. Even the garden-wise details of sundry creditors

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

71,78,703 6 31.03.2009 124,10,35,109 7 31.03.2010 130,32,47,966 8 31.03.2011 136,01,89,749 9 31.03.2012 141,38,93,166 4.1 Despite showing high amount as sundry creditors in its Balance Sheet over the years, the assessee has not even furnished details of same. Even the garden-wise details of sundry creditors

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

penalty of Rs. 1,16,71,115/- made by the assessing officer U/s 271 (1)(c) on account of unverifiable investment. 2. That your appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal or to modify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. First we take up the quantum appeal

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

penalty of Rs. 1,16,71,115/- made by the assessing officer U/s 271 (1)(c) on account of unverifiable investment. 2. That your appellant craves leave of your honour to take additional ground or grounds of appeal or to modify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. First we take up the quantum appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

71,531/- as\nthe same is not as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. Finally, the\nId. AO assessed the loss at ₹2,74,27,701/- and also initiated the\npenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Id. AO finally\nimposed penalty vide order dated 29.11.2023, passed u/s 271(1)(c)\nof the Act for furnishing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR & TPS, LAKHIMPUR vs. M/S. M.M. REEDO AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD., ITANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

71,10,000/- towards Share Capital and Share Premium (Rs. 1,48,44,000/-+Rs.2,22,66,000/- + Rs. 17,37,000/-) as unexplained money.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of automobiles. Nil income declared in e-return filed on 22-11-2012 filed

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

71,990.00 in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 14,436.00 under the head Income from Other Sources in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

71,990.00 in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs. 14,436.00 under the head Income from Other Sources in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier