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

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty recovered for late execution of work, etc. 8.4. Therefore, the 'other income' of Rs.19,53,089/- is considered as gross receipt and taxable as the same is not grant-in-aid as evident from the letter so submitted and also on its nature of receipt. 9. The assessee claimed that since the entire surplus is not their income

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty recovered for late execution of work, etc. 8.4. Therefore, the 'other income' of Rs.19,53,089/- is considered as gross receipt and taxable as the same is not grant-in-aid as evident from the letter so submitted and also on its nature of receipt. 9. The assessee claimed that since the entire surplus is not their income

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty recovered for late execution of work, etc. 8.4. Therefore, the 'other income' of Rs.19,53,089/- is considered as gross receipt and taxable as the same is not grant-in-aid as evident from the letter so submitted and also on its nature of receipt. 9. The assessee claimed that since the entire surplus is not their income

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION) WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty recovered for late execution of work, etc. 8.4. Therefore, the 'other income' of Rs.19,53,089/- is considered as gross receipt and taxable as the same is not grant-in-aid as evident from the letter so submitted and also on its nature of receipt. 9. The assessee claimed that since the entire surplus is not their income

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty recovered for late execution of work, etc. 8.4. Therefore, the 'other income' of Rs.19,53,089/- is considered as gross receipt and taxable as the same is not grant-in-aid as evident from the letter so submitted and also on its nature of receipt. 9. The assessee claimed that since the entire surplus is not their income

STAE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty recovered for late execution of work, etc. 8.4. Therefore, the 'other income' of Rs.19,53,089/- is considered as gross receipt and taxable as the same is not grant-in-aid as evident from the letter so submitted and also on its nature of receipt. 9. The assessee claimed that since the entire surplus is not their income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03 was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the requisite approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is mandatorily required, was not taken. Since 4 years had elapsed from the end of the relevant A.Y, the A.O 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

reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 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

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

reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD,, JORHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs.8,94,55,000/-“. 11. The name of four accommodation providers, which has been discussed in the reasons for reopening is not discernable in this list of seventeen entities. Therefore, these concerns have not been demonstrated by the ld. Assessing Officer as connected in any manner

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits and cash withdrawals ignoring all reasons of taxation. 4. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits and cash withdrawals ignoring all reasons of taxation. 4. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC