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)

purchases either drew a blank or as in the case of Shri Vikas Bansal, the facts of bogus accommodation entries were confirmed. Thereafter, a total addition of Rs. 202,30,39,718/- was made by the Ld. AO. 3.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, it was averred that the assessee was only an entry provider and hence should

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

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 by issue of a notice u/s. 148, in spite of the fact that none of conditions precedent existed and/or have been complied with and/or fulfilled by the Ld. A.O. (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly wrong in not considering the fact that proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 is completely

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

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 by issue of a notice u/s. 148, in spite of the fact that none of conditions precedent existed and/or have been complied with and/or fulfilled by the Ld. A.O. (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly wrong in not considering the fact that proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 is completely

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ARIHANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED , GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

bogus business loss, claimed to have been incurred by the assessee, from trading in Future & option. (iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of appeal.” 5. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. AO stating that ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year on the basis of report of investigation cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter the AO received the information from Investigation Wing that the assessee has received bogus loans in the form

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year on the basis of report of investigation cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter the AO received the information from Investigation Wing that the assessee has received bogus loans in the form

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year on the basis of report of investigation cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and thereafter the AO received the information from Investigation Wing that the assessee has received bogus loans in the form

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding. 2. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 19,93,72,482/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR vs. ROHIT KUMAR GULGULIA, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

147 were not disposed of by the AO by any speaking order in writing as required under the law, without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble courts cited by the AO in his reply dated 24.04.2019, according to which a time span of four weeks was to be given to the assessee after the objections are disposed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL 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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. PRAMOD KUMAR 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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s