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

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

section 69A of the Act, but he eventually added the impugned amount u/s 68 of the Act. It was further

SUMITRA DEVI JHURIA,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-2(1) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Levying The Special Tax Rates As Prescribed Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or section 69D of the Act. It is evident that computation of tax under

MS. ALLIED TRADE LINKS,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. The same may kindly be deleted. 2. That the appellant craves leave to submit any other ground/s on or before the hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return showing total income at Rs.67,63,330/- was filed on 24.10.2017, which was taken up under

JAMIR ALI,KUMARGHAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Given The Following Findings:

Sections 69A, 2 698, 69C, or 68 of the Act. In this case, the Ld. Commissioner R (Appeals) passed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

sections": [ "69A", "68" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for bogus unsecured loans and share

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 in as much as the income

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 in as much as the income

SHRI ASHISH KUMAR DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to 'financial year

SMT. MAYA RANI DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to 'financial year

SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to 'financial year

DIVYAMALA PRAKASH,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Divyamala Prakash Ito, Ward-1, Tezpur Flat No. 6A, Syndicate Marble, Six Vs. Mile Radhanagar, Guwahati-784036. Pan: Bpmpp 6934 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

69A of the Act. He also disallowed the setting off loss of Rs. 1,00,572/- against the income from business or profession. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and assessee had made detailed submission along with filing additional evidence in support of her contention. The assessee has filed its submission

SIBA PRASAD BARUAH,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHAT

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Siba Prasad Baruah Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati. House No. 6, Mrds Road, Vs. Chandmari, Guwahati-03. Pan: Abwpb 3397 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Kishor Jain, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-1, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 07.01.2019 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati, Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

68, u/s 69A and section 69 of the Act. In this respect, assessee furnished a written submission dated 22.12.2017, stating

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

69A whereas the addition has been made by the Ld. ITO under section 68 of the Act.” 2.1 Regarding

VIVEK AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

69A whereas the addition has been made by the Ld. ITO under section 68 of the Act.” 2.1 Regarding

VIVEK AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TINSUKIA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in all the three matters and has challenged the imposition of penalty in ITA No. 227 & 228/Gty/2024. He has also challenged the treatment of LTCG as bogus in the case of ITA No. 204/Gty/2018. For the A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 204/Gty/2018) the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal which deserve to be extracted for reference:

69A whereas the addition has been made by the Ld. ITO under section 68 of the Act.” 2.1 Regarding

RANEE NARAH ,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR -2 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) On The Basis Of Following Findings:

Section 68 / 69, which provides that where any sum is found credited in the books / bank accounts of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, such sum may be charged

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68,135/- was raised on account of tax (charged u/s 115BBE) &interest (u/s 234A, B & C) on the appellant. 10. That further proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAD(1((i) and 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 was also initiated on the very same date.” 3.1 Thus, as against the returned income

SUBHASH CHAND CHORARIA,GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

69A of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was required to file written submissions along with evidences/documents but no compliance was made. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the assessment order considering the facts of deposit of ₹37 Lakh, the cash in hand as on 01.04.2015 and 01.04.2016 and also on various periods relating to the period