ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

3)/147 of the Act holding that the order passed by the AO is illegal, void and is a nullity at law. (4) On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition of Rs 13,06,00,000/- made under section 68

SHRI ABDUL HAMID,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TINSUKIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

3,65,933/- as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to understand whether the provisions of section 115BBE are applicable to the assessee or not, let us first go through the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, which reads as follows: “15BBE. Tax on income referred to in section

SHRI ABDUL HANNAN,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TINSUKIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

3,65,933/- as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to understand whether the provisions of section 115BBE are applicable to the assessee or not, let us first go through the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, which reads as follows: “15BBE. Tax on income referred to in section

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. Share Capital do not fall within the ambit of Section 68: • Another legal question which is relevant to the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that during the search conducted at the premises of the assessee on 20.09.2019, certain documents were found and seized. These documents were inventoried as SD ABCI 03, page 53, which according to him contains ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that during the search conducted at the premises of the assessee on 20.09.2019, certain documents were found and seized. These documents were inventoried as SD ABCI 03, page 53, which according to him contains ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited

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

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

section 68 of the Act had been correctly invoked. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), GUWAHATI vs. PRAG RAJ SINGLA, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by holding that the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was Prag Raj Singla Assessment Year:2013-14 unsecured loan received by the assessee on the basis of additional evidence

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

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

68 of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact of the case mentioned in Form No. 35 itself. 3. In ITA No. 224/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following ground :- Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited “That the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified while confirming addition of Rs.2,07,20,125/- without properly

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

68 of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact of the case mentioned in Form No. 35 itself. 3. In ITA No. 224/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following ground :- Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited “That the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified while confirming addition of Rs.2,07,20,125/- without properly

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

68 of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact of the case mentioned in Form No. 35 itself. 3. In ITA No. 224/GAU/2019, the assessee has raised the following ground :- Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited “That the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified while confirming addition of Rs.2,07,20,125/- without properly

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, 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 Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, 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 Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD BAMALWA, 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 Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, 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 Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, 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 Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, 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 Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from