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)

144B of IT Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.12,95,07,714/- u/s 69C/69A rws 115BBE of IT Act treating the aggregate amounts of credit entries in the bank accounts

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)

144B of IT Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.12,95,07,714/- u/s 69C/69A rws 115BBE of IT Act treating the aggregate amounts of credit entries in the bank accounts

JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,00,000/-. I request the Honourable ITAT to kindly delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) and relieve me from being penalized, as the time deposit was made in a bank situated in Meghalaya.” 2.1. The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “Ground

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

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

D M JEWELLERS,GUWAHATI vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022 determining income at Rs. 53,49,810/- by making addition of Rs. 50,33,000/- on account of bogus purchase as per provisions of section 68

TORSA MACHINES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, nor the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in not adjudicating the same ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs. 7,78,47,097 pertained to the earlier A.Ys, the details of which were mentioned in the Statement of Facts submitted with the appeal. 6. That the appellant craves

ASSAM VALLEY FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,GUWAHATI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Assam Valley Finance & Dcit, Circle 1 Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, House No.1, Niligiri Path, G.S Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca6974B Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

section 144B of the Act. We note that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15.03.2021, and thereafter, the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, were issued on 25.01.2022 and 06.02.2022, which were duly complied with the assessee. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has shown loss Assam Valley Finance and Investment

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

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 was not justified in making addition of Rs. 14,436.00 under the head Income from Other Sources in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt

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

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 was not justified in making addition of Rs. 14,436.00 under the head Income from Other Sources in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144B of the 1. T. Act, 1961 (Act) is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. i) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in arbitrarily confirming the addition made by the ld. AO of Rs. 3,53,35,148/- by invoking provisions of section 69C of the Act. ii) For that

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

144B of the Act, dated 21.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “(a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in interpreting the provisions of Sec.69C of the IT Act, 1961, holding the third-party statement collected by the investigating wing of the department as concrete evidence