GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

90,14,300/- in total, however the total consideration amount of the property is Rs. 9,22,50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts

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, which according to him did not constitute income represented in the form of ‘asset’ escaping assessment, in terms of fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Further according to Shri Dudhwewala, cash credits were not in the nature of ‘asset’ as defined in Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso to Section 153A

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has earned long-term capital gain of Rs.52,83,100/- from sale of equity shares of Parag Shilpa Investments Limited and exemption under section 10(38) was claimed. The ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has earned long-term capital gain of Rs.52,83,100/- from sale of equity shares of Parag Shilpa Investments Limited and exemption under section 10(38) was claimed. The ld. Assessing Officer based on the information received

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

68,667/-. Assessment Page 2 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act on 20.02.2019 making disallowance of amortization expenses on the lands taken on lease at Rs. Rs.22,56,588/- and Corporate Guarantee adjustment at Rs. 83,83,979/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

LAXMI NARAYAN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

68,45,776/- between the valuation done at the time of survey and the closing stock estimated on the basis of recast trading account as per page 2 of the assessment order. It was also submitted before us that there was no adverse comment by the Ld. AO in para 3 and no fault was found with the books

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

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

2,62,79,555/-, whereas after verification through issuance of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act, the Ld. AO found that five such debtors had claimed that there was no outstanding against their name vis-à-vis the assessee. The Ld. AO proceeded to add the impugned amount in regard to excess sundry debtors. Regarding the second addition

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. 15. Aggrieved, by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 16. The learned DR for the Revenue submitted that the subscriber of the shares

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. 15. Aggrieved, by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO. 16. The learned DR for the Revenue submitted that the subscriber of the shares

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)

90,260 ….do…. 11 ….do... …do…. 11- 1,16,61,819 ….do…. 12 ….do... …do…. 12- 2,32,87,431 ….do…. 13 ….do... …do…. 13- 1,85,27,754 ….do…. 14 ….do... …do…. 14- 2,80.46.245 ….do…. 15 Naamita Paul AGZPP8327N 08- 1,61,60,303 ….do…. 09 ….do... …do…. 09- 2

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

90,16,960/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act after holding the same as not genuine expenditure. 4. 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. 221/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case, learned A.O. is not justified in initiating

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

90,16,960/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act after holding the same as not genuine expenditure. 4. 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. 221/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case, learned A.O. is not justified in initiating