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.

68 and uphold the Department's appeal.” 3.1 Per contra, the Ld. AR relied on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), specially at page 9 of the impugned order (supra). It was stated that this lender, who for the sake of convenience will be referred to as Mr. A.A., was a genuine lender and had advanced loan

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. RAMSWARUP BAJAJ, ASSAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

67 and 68\nand 69 of the Id. CIT (A), wherein in paragraph 3 to 5 the Id. CIT (A)\nhas held as follows:-\n\"3. That, no enquiry seems to have been conducted by the Investigation wing (i.e. during\nthe course of post search investigation) or by the AO (i.e. during the course of the\nassessment proceedings) with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. BATH AND SANITARY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

67,07,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act which has also been allowed by Ld. CIT(A) by holding that the money received from the partnership concern as capital contribution cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Telengana High Court in Nova Medicare

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

68,00,000/-. I request the Honourable ITAT to kindly delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) and relieve me from being penalized, as the time deposit was made in a bank situated in Meghalaya.” 2.1. The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “Ground

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)

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 the validityof assessment order

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

68,30,300 2. VISHNU KANT CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,41,27,050 3. KAVITA CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,67,82,500 4. KAMLA DEVI CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,67,12,210 5. BRAHMADUTT CHOKHANI AND KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,66,75,000 SONS (HUF) 6. VISHNU CHOKHANI AND SONS KAILASH AUTO FINANCE

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

68,30,300 2. VISHNU KANT CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,41,27,050 3. KAVITA CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,67,82,500 4. KAMLA DEVI CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,67,12,210 5. BRAHMADUTT CHOKHANI AND KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,66,75,000 SONS (HUF) 6. VISHNU CHOKHANI AND SONS KAILASH AUTO FINANCE

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

68,30,300 2. VISHNU KANT CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,41,27,050 3. KAVITA CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,67,82,500 4. KAMLA DEVI CHOKHANI KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,67,12,210 5. BRAHMADUTT CHOKHANI AND KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 1,66,75,000 SONS (HUF) 6. VISHNU CHOKHANI AND SONS KAILASH AUTO FINANCE

GOLDEN ARROW TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

68,043/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Id. AO has made the disallowance arbitrarily and without bring in on record any material to show that such payment to a person exceeded Rs. 30,000/- during the relevant year. 3 For that

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

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

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit

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

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

68 of I.T. Act. 3. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,32,362/- 2. The Appellant craves