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)

Sections 68 and 69C of the Act, and if the purchases are bogus, then it is not incumbent upon the Tribunal to restrict the disallowance only to certain percentage of such purchases. The SLP against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income

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).

section. 68. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber: (2) the genuineness of the transaction namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels (3) the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber (4) (if relevant details of the address or PAN identity of the creditor subscriber are furnished

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

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

68-107 of Additional Paper Book). Relevant para of the Ld. CIT(A) order is reproduced below: “10.3.1 The point to be decided boils down to whether assessee's receipt on account of Central Excise Duty Refund is capital receipt or not. From the notes to audited accounts, it is seen that the assessee was enjoying Central Excise duty exemption

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

68,135/- was raised on account of tax (charged u/s 115BBE) &interest (u/s 234A, B & C) on the appellant. 10. That further proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAD(1((i) and 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 was also initiated on the very same date.” 3.1 Thus, as against the returned income

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