DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

1) of section 251 I.T.A. No.: 50/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. of the Act with effect from 01.06.2001. Further, the evidence for claiming exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act was not produced before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings nor even before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings

ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2010-11 dated 27.08.2018, I.T.A. No.: 358/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Accrecent Way Marketing Private Limited. which has been passed against the assessment order passed by the u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2013. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

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 08- 1

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

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

1) of the Act. Book profit of the assessee was shown at Rs. 9,27,68,667/-. 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

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

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.

section 68 of the Act in complete disregard of the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dataware Private Limited [ITAT No. 263 of 2011 and G.A. No. 2856 of 2011]. 8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati had misdirected himself

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

section 68 of the Act in complete disregard of the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Dataware Private Limited [ITAT No. 263 of 2011 and G.A. No. 2856 of 2011]. 8. That the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax is against law and facts

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined