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

unexplained expenditure under Sec.69C of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, this case has been misplaced by the Ld. CIT(A) and this citation of the Apex court is distinguishable in the preset case in hand. The Ld. CIT(A) has not gone through the facts of the case thoroughly and uphold the decision of the Ld. AO is not sustainable

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

147 of the I. T,. Act could not be made u/s. 153A of the I. T. Act? While disposing appeal the Hon'ble High Court held: We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a pre-requisite before power could have been exercised under section 153C read with section 153A

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

147 of the I. T,. Act could not be made u/s. 153A of the I. T. Act? While disposing appeal the Hon'ble High Court held: We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a pre-requisite before power could have been exercised under section 153C read with section 153A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act since the notice was never served upon the assessee personally. It is stated that the assessee is from the Scheduled Tribe of Nagaland and is exempt from Income Tax as per section 10(26) of the Act. The assessee is an agriculturist having paddy field and timber plantation in Longsa village under Mokokchung

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

reassessment as per the provision of section 147 to 151 of the Act, the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 and time was granted to file return of income for 30 days but assessee did not file return of income. Subsequently, other statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

reassessment as per the provision of section 147 to 151 of the Act, the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 and time was granted to file return of income for 30 days but assessee did not file return of income. Subsequently, other statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

unexplained cash credit/ bogus credit and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2023. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing

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

Unexplained investment in residential building 760455 Total disputed additions to income: 2508354 I.T.A. Nos.: 258 & 259/GTY/2018 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Jugal Chandra Saikia. 1.1 In appeal bearing number Guwa-109/2003-04/TR, the learned CIT (A)-II, by an order dated 30/11/2006 partly allowed the appeal by holding that the addition was based on too many assumptions. The said

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

Unexplained investment in residential building 760455 Total disputed additions to income: 2508354 I.T.A. Nos.: 258 & 259/GTY/2018 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94 Jugal Chandra Saikia. 1.1 In appeal bearing number Guwa-109/2003-04/TR, the learned CIT (A)-II, by an order dated 30/11/2006 partly allowed the appeal by holding that the addition was based on too many assumptions. The said

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)

money on behalf of the said companies. Also, the Ld. AO found that there was no mention of any commission charged as a broker with respect to the alleged transactions on behalf of these companies. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee averred that the credit in all the bank accounts have been treated u/s

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)

money on behalf of the said companies. Also, the Ld. AO found that there was no mention of any commission charged as a broker with respect to the alleged transactions on behalf of these companies. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee averred that the credit in all the bank accounts have been treated u/s

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Subsequently, proceeding w/s.153A of the Act was initiated against the assessee and notices 153A of the Act were issued and served on the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16. Copies enclosed at pg 1-6 of the Additional P/b. At the juncture, would be of relevance to quote secund

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

unexplained share capital and share premium received in the year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. The assessee apart from raising the grounds on merit challenging the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer also challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings carried out under section 147 read with section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

unexplained share capital and share premium received in the year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. The assessee apart from raising the grounds on merit challenging the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer also challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings carried out under section 147 read with section

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

unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money was uncalled for, unjustified and thus the same be deleted. (8) 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

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

unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money was uncalled for, unjustified and thus the same be deleted. (8) 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

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

unexplained cash credit on account of share capital/security premium/share application money was uncalled for, unjustified and thus the same be deleted. (8) 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

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

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

money in the hands of the subscribers was not explained and accordingly, the same treated as IT(SS)A Nos.1 to 7/GTY/2024 & 224/GTY/2024 Mayurply Industries Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 10-11, 12-13 to 17-18, 18-19 unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee