DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. SHRI SATYAJIT SAHA, AGARTALA

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 190/GTY/2019 CO No. 07/Gty/2019 Shri Satyajit Saha 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed these issues at length in paras 7.3 and 9.3, respectively for the two issues, in the impugned order. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) has given relief on these to issues. For the sake of reference, the relevant findings

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

127 of the Act was passed which led to centralization of the case of the assessee. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2017. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on 14.08.2018, declaring an income of ₹18,48,450/- and the same

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

127 of the Act was passed which led to centralization of the case of the assessee. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2017. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on 14.08.2018, declaring an income of ₹18,48,450/- and the same

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

127 of the Act was passed which led to centralization of the case of the assessee. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2017. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on 14.08.2018, declaring an income of ₹18,48,450/- and the same

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

127 of the Act was passed which led to centralization of the case of the assessee. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2017. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on 14.08.2018, declaring an income of ₹18,48,450/- and the same

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

127 of the Act was passed which led to centralization of the case of the assessee. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2017. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its Income Tax Return ["ITR"] on 14.08.2018, declaring an income of ₹18,48,450/- and the same

UNTESWAR SINGH,NONGPOH vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI,

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

127 of the Act dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong. In compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, no valid return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee but the same were not complied with. Since

UNTESWAR SINGH,MEGHALAYA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

127 of the Act dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong. In compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, no valid return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee but the same were not complied with. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that