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 in relation to the same sale proceeds received in the bank account. And pursuant to the re-opening, in the reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) dated 24-12-2018, the AO’s predecessor had recorded a categorical finding that the receipts pertained to sale of investments which had been verified by him. There

JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order afresh in the light of findings of the Special Judge on the charge sheet filed against the appellant. (Tribunal's order at Page number 12 to 16 of the paper-book, at ANNEXURE-4) {emphasis supplied} 1.3 The learned AO has given effect to the Hon'ble Tribunal's order by the purported order u/s 254 (which should

JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment order afresh in the light of findings of the Special Judge on the charge sheet filed against the appellant. (Tribunal's order at Page number 12 to 16 of the paper-book, at ANNEXURE-4) {emphasis supplied} 1.3 The learned AO has given effect to the Hon'ble Tribunal's order by the purported order u/s 254 (which should

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

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

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

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)

70,87,907 ….do…. 15 Subhajit Paul AZNPP5539K 08- 1,53,950 …do… 09 ….do... …do…. 00- 5,25,320 ….

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)

70 of the CGST Act in which the assessee had apparently admitted that the purchases shown by him are bogus and no transportation of materials was ever done. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO initiated a process of verification of the major purchases in response to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act (notices issued

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)

70 of the CGST Act in which the assessee had apparently admitted that the purchases shown by him are bogus and no transportation of materials was ever done. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO initiated a process of verification of the major purchases in response to notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act (notices issued

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Bench: the date of hearing.”

70 (SC)] which needed be read in conjunction with the case of Ashish Agarwal [138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)], the notice u/s 148 issued under the new regime was barred by limitation. 2.1 The Ld. DR stated that such ground was not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) or even the Ld. AO and hence the same should not be entertained

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Bench: the date of hearing.”

70 (SC)] which needed be read in conjunction with the case of Ashish Agarwal [138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)], the notice u/s 148 issued under the new regime was barred by limitation. 2.1 The Ld. DR stated that such ground was not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) or even the Ld. AO and hence the same should not be entertained

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

147 taxmann.com 288/[2022] SCC Online All 1294], the Hon’ble High Court has held that approval u/s.153D of the Act is to be granted by the competent authority on ITA No. 306 to 310/GTY/2019 the draft assessment order for each year separately. The operative part of the said judgment is extracted below :- “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

147 taxmann.com 288/[2022] SCC Online All 1294], the Hon’ble High Court has held that approval u/s.153D of the Act is to be granted by the competent authority on ITA No. 306 to 310/GTY/2019 the draft assessment order for each year separately. The operative part of the said judgment is extracted below :- “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

147 taxmann.com 288/[2022] SCC Online All 1294], the Hon’ble High Court has held that approval u/s.153D of the Act is to be granted by the competent authority on ITA No. 306 to 310/GTY/2019 the draft assessment order for each year separately. The operative part of the said judgment is extracted below :- “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

147 taxmann.com 288/[2022] SCC Online All 1294], the Hon’ble High Court has held that approval u/s.153D of the Act is to be granted by the competent authority on ITA No. 306 to 310/GTY/2019 the draft assessment order for each year separately. The operative part of the said judgment is extracted below :- “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

147 taxmann.com 288/[2022] SCC Online All 1294], the Hon’ble High Court has held that approval u/s.153D of the Act is to be granted by the competent authority on ITA No. 306 to 310/GTY/2019 the draft assessment order for each year separately. The operative part of the said judgment is extracted below :- “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel

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