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)

68, read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share capital) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of dying of cloth on job-work basis - It filed return declaring certain taxable income Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied

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

section 68 and Rs.26,83,650/- being commission paid by the assessee for arranging this bogus accommodation entry of unexplained credit amounting to Rs.8,94,55,000/-. He calculated the commission at the rate of 3% and in this way determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.9,21,96,300/-. 6. Before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority

MS. ALLIED TRADE LINKS,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. The same may kindly be deleted. 2. That the appellant craves leave to submit any other ground/s on or before the hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return showing total income at Rs.67,63,330/- was filed on 24.10.2017, which was taken up under

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

section 44AB during the impugned period of A.Y.2021-22. 4. That accordingly, the appellant furnished tax audit report and return of income for the A.Y.2021-22 by declaring a gross total Income of Rs 14,65,162/- which included Income under the head Profit from Business & Profession Rs 14,53,999/- & Income from other Sources Rs 11,163/- The net taxable

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

ASSISTANT 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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

CHANGLANG COMMUNITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SOCIETY,CHANGLALNG vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), 2(4), SHILLONG

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

68,990/- against which the assessee filed rectification request on 18.08.2020 against the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) but the assessee could not produce any rectification order till the date of hearing. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings various notices were issued to justify the grounds raised, the assessee filed detailed written submissions

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]

3) of the Act had already been completed on 24-12-2018 and therefore on the date of search i.e. 05-12-2019, the income tax assessment for AY 2011-12 stood unabated. 33. We note that Section 153A/153C of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1-6-2003. It replaced the provisions relating to block

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

68,92,668/-. 7. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given his findings as under after examining the assessment order and other details filed: “6.3 In view of the above detailed reasons AO rejected the appellant's claim and concluded the assessment after making the addition u/s.69C