SHRI PRABHUDAYAL BERIWAL,JYOTINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DIBRUGARH

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 29.02.2024. 1.1 In this case, a survey was conducted on 18.07.2017 on M/s Kaliapani Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. A Director in this Company had apparently given a statement under oath

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ROHIT JAIN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A. Nos.: 338 & 339/GTY/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Rohit Jain. 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 08.04.2019 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 153A/153D/143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2018. 2. As the issues raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ROHIT JAIN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, I.T.A. Nos.: 338 & 339/GTY/2019 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Rohit Jain. 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 08.04.2019 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 153A/153D/143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2018. 2. As the issues raised

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 Act dated 13.06.2024 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065637553(1). Therefore, the contentions made by the appellant with regard to re-opening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act and making additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act are redundant and infructuous. 4.2.1 Further, the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act were introduced

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 219, & 222/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has fails to appreciate all the averments/objections taken by the appellant in its written submission dated 11.10.2018 and was in gross violation of natural justice while dismissing the case without considering

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 219, & 222/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has fails to appreciate all the averments/objections taken by the appellant in its written submission dated 11.10.2018 and was in gross violation of natural justice while dismissing the case without considering

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In ITA No. 219, & 222/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has fails to appreciate all the averments/objections taken by the appellant in its written submission dated 11.10.2018 and was in gross violation of natural justice while dismissing the case without considering

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

250(4) and directed the assessee to furnish details and documents in respect of addition/disallowance made in the assessment. 6.1. On the first issue relating to addition in respect of introduction of capital, assessee reiterated the submission as already stated above. Assessee had transferred the following 6 ITA No.428/GTY/2019 & CO No. 12/GTY/2019 Pannalal Bhansali, AY: 2016-17 entries

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.

4. In view of the above bona fide, unintended delay of 60 days caused by this office is sincerely regretted and it is most humbly prayed by the undersigned that, the delay may kindly be condoned by your honour and allow filling of the appeals before the Ld. ITAT.” 1.1 In light of the application, the delay is hereby condoned

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

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

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

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

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

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