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

68). (b) Bansal Strips (P.) Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T. (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Delhi) "Annexure - D" (at Pages 69 to 83). Further reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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.

68 of the Act. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati erred in not allowing reasonable opportunity of showing cause as contemplated under section 251

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

68 of the Act. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati erred in not allowing reasonable opportunity of showing cause as contemplated under section 251

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

DOCTOR BAWITLUNG ZOTHANKIMA,AIZAWL vs. DCIT, SILCHAR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act as unexplained credit. 1.1 Aggrieved with the action of Ld. AO the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed and even his income was enhanced with the following findings: “6.9 There are transfers to appellant's account with Axis Bank totalling Rs. 12,56,899. According to the appellant, the same

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

251 of the IT Act, 1961 as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Income as per Return of Income Rs. 10,88,000/- 2. Addition as per appellate order under Section 250 of Rs. 68

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

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

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

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

Section 251 of the I.T. Act in the case of the Appellant. Page 3 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 195/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Picklu Paul. 5. For that the Appellant craves leave to take up any further ground or grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

68,760 ….do…. 11 ….do... …do…. 11- 21,25,81,959 ….do…. 12 ….do... …do…. 12- 33,70,10,742 ….do…. 13 ….do... …do…. 13- 27,25,50,393 ….do…. 14 ….do... …do…. 14- 20,70,87,907 ….do…. 15 Subhajit Paul AZNPP5539K

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

68,667/-. Assessment Page 2 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act on 20.02.2019 making disallowance of amortization expenses on the lands taken on lease at Rs. Rs.22,56,588/- and Corporate Guarantee adjustment at Rs. 83,83,979/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251(2) of the Act. While enhancing the addition the Ld. CIT(A) had given the following directions: “Further, in view of the fact that the Appellant could not furnish Bills and Vouchers both during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, it emanates that the Appellant has not maintained any books of Accounts. Accordingly

SHRI ABHIJIT RABHA,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 to 70 of the impugned order and reads as follows: “In view of the above discussion, the impugned addition of Rs. 40,92,502/-made by the Ld. AO is, hereby, confirmed. It is further directed that the so called expenses amounting to Rs. 7,26,607/- purportedly incurred by the Appellant in earning the gross agricultural income