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

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

68 of the Act for alleged bogus share capital and share premium observing as follows: “12.2. I have considered the submissions made before me by the appellant. I have also perused the assessment order and the remand report sent by the Assessing Officer. In his remand report the Assessing Officer has simply stated that the addition was made

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

68 of the Act for alleged bogus share capital and share premium observing as follows: “12.2. I have considered the submissions made before me by the appellant. I have also perused the assessment order and the remand report sent by the Assessing Officer. In his remand report the Assessing Officer has simply stated that the addition was made

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

58,000 being the outstanding balance of creditors, made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SRKM STEEL (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Srkm Steel (P) Ltd. Tax, Circle-1 Lokhra Road Babylon, Post Aayakar Bhawan, G.S. Road, Office-Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Christian Basti, 781034, Assam Guwahati-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

58,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny through Computer Assisted SRKM Steel (P) Ltd.; A.Y. 2017-18 Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were dully issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed that the assessee has taken

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

68 of the Act b) Addition on account of Long Term - Rs.2,58,69,249/- Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed as exemption u/s. 10(38) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) c) Disallowance of loss from trading - Rs.20,22,293/- in commodity and F&O derivatives 2.2. In the addition and disallowance at (a) and (b) above, revenue is in appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ANUPAM NIRMAN PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Anupam Nirman Private Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati Vs Limited 1St Floor, Kabita Mansion Rajgarh Link Road Chandmari Guwahati - 781003 [Pan : Aaica 4965 B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,20,77,310/- On Account Estimation Of The Net Profit @ 7% Of Total Turnover For The Year. (Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 49,05,724/- On Account Of Disallowance Towards Interest Expense Against Loan Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 11,26,247/- On

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital.” The present legal position is that there can be no addition under Section 153C for a particular assessment year, in which the assessment is complete and is not pending, without there being some "incriminating material" qua that assessment which would justify such an addition

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)

58,199/- and Rs. 67,25,694/- aggregating to Rs. 2,31,83,893/-. (vi) For that the cross-objector craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds of cross-objection and/or modify or resign any ground(s) of cross-objection at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The assessee in his cross objection has challenged

JUD CEMENT LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

section 80 IE of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the appellant craves leave to submit any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that the assessee is a limited company. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of clinker and cement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68 of the Act. On appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act on several grounds inter alia including that these seized documents cannot be said to be incriminating to justify additions made u/s 68 of the Act in the unabated assessments of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court found

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

58-63 of Additional Paper Book] three judge bench of the Apex Court relied upon the earlier three judge bench decision in the case of CIT -vs.- Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) (in the context of Section 31(3)(a) of the 1922 Act which corresponds to Sec. 251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act), where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. SHRI SATYAJIT SAHA, AGARTALA

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

Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shillong [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.02.2019. 2.1 In this case, there are basically two additions which relate to the grievance of the Revenue. The first pertains to an addition of Rs. 60,81,948/- on the ground

M/S. JAIN ENTERPRISE,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), DIBRUGARH

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

58,036.50 (Rs. 2,14,200.00+Rs. 3,43,836.50). 18. According to Ld. AR on going through the details of transit ccording to Ld. AR on going through the details of transit ccording to Ld. AR on going through the details of transit sale appearing herein above it will be noticed that no local VAT was charged on transit

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal