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. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation was carried out on 06.12.2012 u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Satyam Group of companies. The assessee company is part of Satyam Group of companies and is engaged in the business of manufacture of M.S. Billet & TMT Bars. Original return of income

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. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation was carried out on 06.12.2012 u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Satyam Group of companies. The assessee company is part of Satyam Group of companies and is engaged in the business of manufacture of M.S. Billet & TMT Bars. Original return of income

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

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

83,100/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and also made an addition of commission

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

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

83,100/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and also made an addition of commission

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

83,97,428/- on which income had purportedly escaped assessment. These details are gleaned from the communication dated 16.07.2021 from the AO to the assessee, which has been kindly supplied by the Ld. AR at pages 12 and 13 of the paper book. Thus, it is seen that most of the information used for the reopening was supplied

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

83,97,428/- on which income had purportedly escaped assessment. These details are gleaned from the communication dated 16.07.2021 from the AO to the assessee, which has been kindly supplied by the Ld. AR at pages 12 and 13 of the paper book. Thus, it is seen that most of the information used for the reopening was supplied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD,, JORHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 and Rs.26,83,650/- being commission paid by the assessee for arranging this bogus accommodation entry of unexplained

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:

68 of the Act. In this case, the Ld. Commissioner R (Appeals) passed his order under Section 250 of the Act, showing the assessed income/loss as Rs. 0.00 (zero). Despite this, a penalty/tax/fine/interest/demand of Rs.8,83

UNTESWAR SINGH,MEGHALAYA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

83,500/- added is already disclosed as part of turnover in the return filed and there is no necessity of disclosing the same once again and the statement given has been misconstrued and not taken to the logical conclusion. 4. That the addition of interest and commission income is bad in law since the same has already been disclosed

UNTESWAR SINGH,NONGPOH vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI,

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

83,500/- added is already disclosed as part of turnover in the return filed and there is no necessity of disclosing the same once again and the statement given has been misconstrued and not taken to the logical conclusion. 4. That the addition of interest and commission income is bad in law since the same has already been disclosed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR vs. ROHIT KUMAR GULGULIA, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

68 pages. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has dealt with each of the aspect of jurisdictional and legal issue of reopening of the assessment. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel are multi-fold, each of them are dealt hereunder: 6.1. Primarily, reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO are based on reproduction of the survey report submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. KRISHNA BORTHAKUR, L/R OF LATE KAMAKHYA BORTHAKUR, TINSUKIA

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained unsecured loan. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 05.12.2011 declaring total income of Rs.57,31,744/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon

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)

83 CCH 148 Chen HC / (2012) 80 DTR (Mad) 257 / (2012) 254 CTR (Mad) 576. (E) That the limitation U/S. 158BE(1)(b) of the LT. Act, 1961 for time limit for completion of block assessment, which reproduced below: "within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section

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)

83 CCH 148 Chen HC / (2012) 80 DTR (Mad) 257 / (2012) 254 CTR (Mad) 576. (E) That the limitation U/S. 158BE(1)(b) of the LT. Act, 1961 for time limit for completion of block assessment, which reproduced below: "within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section

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)

83 CCH 148 Chen HC / (2012) 80 DTR (Mad) 257 / (2012) 254 CTR (Mad) 576. (E) That the limitation U/S. 158BE(1)(b) of the LT. Act, 1961 for time limit for completion of block assessment, which reproduced below: "within two years from the end of the month in which the last of the authorisations for search under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. A. T. C. REALTORS PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 169/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 170/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Atc Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Aayakar Bhwawan, 5Th C/O. Atc Assam Ltd, Kedar Vs. Floor, Christanbasti, G.S. Road, Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati-781005 Guwahati-781001 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. Aagca5209A

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and conceived that the assessee have earned the rental income as an owner and is accordingly liable to be assessed under the head "House Property". The Ld. Assessing Officer was apprised by the assessee that the income earned from letting out its property do not partake of the character of "Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. A. T. C. REALTORS PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 169/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 170/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Atc Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Aayakar Bhwawan, 5Th C/O. Atc Assam Ltd, Kedar Vs. Floor, Christanbasti, G.S. Road, Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati-781005 Guwahati-781001 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. Aagca5209A

section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and conceived that the assessee have earned the rental income as an owner and is accordingly liable to be assessed under the head "House Property". The Ld. Assessing Officer was apprised by the assessee that the income earned from letting out its property do not partake of the character of "Income

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)

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 dated 29.03.2016 framed by the Assessing Officer