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

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

KAUSHIK INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallow the expenses claimed by the assessee not related to business income. A show cause notice u/s. 263 was issued on 11.02.2020 proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 147/143(3) dated 03.12.2018. Assessee furnished its reply to the show cause notice stating, 4 Kaushik Industries Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2011-12 inter alia, that case of the assessee

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

reassessment holding that the Revenue was unable to satisfy the conditions precedent in first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. 9.6. Further, in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (291 ITR 500) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an assessment originally completed u/s 143(1) can be reopened by an AO at any time

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

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

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

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

reassessment proceedings, the ground 1 of the appellant that the order passed u/s 147 is bad in law is duly dismissed. Accordingly, the ground 1 to 3 are dismissed. Ground 4: Claim of deduction u/s 80IE 6.5 The appellant has claimed the deduction u/s 80IE in the ROI. However AO has not discussed anything in this regard in the assessment

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

reassessment is that there is no need to resort to Section 147 of the I. T. Act and to consider the disallowance in the assessment to be made under section 153 of the I.T. Act? 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in misinterpreting the CBDT's Circular

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

reassessment is that there is no need to resort to Section 147 of the I. T. Act and to consider the disallowance in the assessment to be made under section 153 of the I.T. Act? 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in misinterpreting the CBDT's Circular

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. (9) 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 the course of assessment proceeding, thus material should be excluded/ignored for the purpose of this case. (10) For that

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. (9) 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 the course of assessment proceeding, thus material should be excluded/ignored for the purpose of this case. (10) For that

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. (9) 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 the course of assessment proceeding, thus material should be excluded/ignored for the purpose of this case. (10) For that

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]

147 of the Act, however the ratio decidendi will apply in the present case, because, like Section 147/148 of the Act, the AO gets the authority to assess/reassess the income of a searched person or other person u/s 153A/153C for the extended assessment years (7th to 10th AYs) only if he has in his possession the jurisdictional fact, as discussed

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)

147 of the IT Act ignoring the contention of appellant that the proceedings have been initiated by the AO without application of independent mind on the material, if any, provided by the other authority of department. The reasons given for reopening of assessment are incoherent, vague and leave assessee guessing for the live link between the material on record