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).

68 of the Act. Subsequently, proceeding w/s.153A of the Act was initiated against the assessee and notices 153A of the Act were issued and served on the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16. Copies enclosed at pg 1-6 of the Additional P/b. At the juncture, would be of relevance to quote secund proviso to sec. 153A

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit. Mentioning wrong Section can be an inadvertent mistake at the end of ld. AO and thus, for adjudication purpose, we deem that the substantive addition was made for unexplained investment. Page 5 of 9 I.T.A. Nos.: 105 & 106/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shyamashree Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 10. Now, when the matter

SHYAMASHREE FINVEST (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD7(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit. Mentioning wrong Section can be an inadvertent mistake at the end of ld. AO and thus, for adjudication purpose, we deem that the substantive addition was made for unexplained investment. Page 5 of 9 I.T.A. Nos.: 105 & 106/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shyamashree Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 10. Now, when the matter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. M/S. KAMALA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY LIMITED, ITANAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

71,10,000 as advance share application money out of which Rs.9,27,50,000 was credited in the share application money during the current year. The AO treated the said amount as income of the appellant under section 68

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

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

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

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SMS SMELTERS LIMITED, NAHARLAGUN

Appeals are allowed in view of our foregoing detailed discussions

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the appellant in the reasons recorded for re-opening of its case, the only reason given is that the appellant company received transport subsidy amounting to Rs.6,97,84,511/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2016 which according to the assessing officer escaped the assessment. No other reason

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

Appeals are dismissed

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

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

Appeals are dismissed

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

68 of the Act for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital. 3. As far as the above facts are concerned, there is nothing shown to the court to persuade and hold that the above factual determination is perverse. Consequently, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that

S.M. LIME INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI,ASSAM vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.37/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 of the Act. Assessee provided the details of Identity, Credit worthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. On the basis of these details, ld. AO was partly satisfied and out of the total unsecured loans of Rs.8,89,24,960/- accepted the claim of unsecured loans of Rs.1,17,50,000/- but made addition for the balance

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:

71,85,500/- under section 69A in the hands of the assessee, and the most critical thing to be examined in this regard is explanation of the assessee with respect to these credits. There is no, and there cannot be any, dispute on the fundamental legal position that the onus is on the assessee to prove 'bonafides' or 'genuineness