SUMITRA DEVI JHURIA,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-2(1) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Levying The Special Tax Rates As Prescribed Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case, the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 was completed under Section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,48,78,730/- under Section 68

LAXMI NARAYAN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18 dated I.T.A. No.: 60/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Laxmi Narayan Packaging Industries. 25.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A. Nos.: 86 & 87/GTY/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited. 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 23.02.2017 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A. Nos.: 86 & 87/GTY/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Satyam Ispat (North East) Limited. 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 23.02.2017 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act dated

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SATISH JALAN, SHILLONG

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 24.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NER, Guwahati [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee allegedly did not provide any details in response to the notices issued by the Ld. AO, through which details of impugned transactions, such as purpose

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)

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.01.2024. I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 33/GTY/2024 Amit Kumar 2. In ITA No. 32/Gty/2024 pertaining to AY 2017-18, the Ld. AO passed an order dated 23.03.2022, through which an addition

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)

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.01.2024. I.T.A. Nos. 32 & 33/GTY/2024 Amit Kumar 2. In ITA No. 32/Gty/2024 pertaining to AY 2017-18, the Ld. AO passed an order dated 23.03.2022, through which an addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI vs. SM JDB ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed several additional documents as new evidence for which a remand report was called from the Ld. AO. It is noteworthy that the remand report has been extensively reproduced between pages 84 to 88 of the impugned order. It is also noted with concern that instead of commenting on the new evidence the Ld. AO has merely submitted to make out a case for non-admission of the same before the Ld. CIT(A) and has not commented on the merit of the documents before him.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati [hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 22.07.2024 for AY 2018-19. 1.1 It is seen that this case was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying exports/imports and share capital. During the course of assessment proceedings

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Page 1 of 4 ITA NO. 107 / GTY / 2025 D.M. Jewellers -Vs- The ITO, Ward-2 (1), Guwahati AY: 2014-15 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The grounds of the assessee are as under:- (i) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shillong [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 29.11.2019 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017 & 22.12.2017, respectively. 2. The captioned appeals have been listed for hearing on various dates but there is no response

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shillong [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 29.11.2019 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2017 & 22.12.2017, respectively. 2. The captioned appeals have been listed for hearing on various dates but there is no response

NIRJA KHATUWALA,NAGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 68 of the Act can be applied on the facts of this case because according to him, the assessee had received goods from these three creditors who are suppliers of goods and consideration (purchase price of goods) has to be made by assessee to these creditors/suppliers, so when the assessee makes the payments to them, consideration/amount/sum of money

FORTRIGHT CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 193/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Fortright Consultants Private Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Vs Guwahati Limited T-1, 3Rd Floor Shivam Apartment House No. 99, A.K. Azad Road Rehabari Guwahati -781008 [Pan : Aaccf2203K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-1, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Impugned Order Dated 31/03/2018 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal, Invalid & Bad-In-Law Being Passed In The Contraventions Of The Principles Of Natural Justice Without Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Findings & Observations Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati Made In His Order Dated 31/03/2018 Are All Perverse & Contrary To The Facts & Laws Of The Case.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the impugned order dated 31/03/2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid and bad-in-law being passed in the contraventions of the Principles

HUK WEALTH CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’) by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)], Guwahati- 1, Guwahati, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’) by ITO, Ward-2(1), Guwahati on 29/12/2016

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).

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.08.2025, DIN & order No. 2 M/s Amplex Projects Private Limited ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079874749(1) on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That

SMT. SANTOSH BAMALWA,DIBRUGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

Section 68 of the Act by the AO of ₹ 1,51,02,134/- which has been affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 2 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Vs ACIT 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income on 29/08/2012 declaring total income of ₹ 7,66,250

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

Section 250 of Rs. 68,00,000/- CIT(A) NFAC Time Deposit u/s 68 of the Act Tax to be Charged

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in I.T.A. Nos.: 105 & 106/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shyamashree Finvest Pvt. Ltd. short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Guwahati-2, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 04.02.2020. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: I.T.A. No.: 105/GTY/2020: “1. That the impugned