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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer further made an addition of unexplained commission expenditure @0.5% of the Long-term capital gain, which as per the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee had paid to arrange the said sum. Appeal against this addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(Appeals), and the assessee

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer further made an addition of unexplained commission expenditure @0.5% of the Long-term capital gain, which as per the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee had paid to arrange the said sum. Appeal against this addition made by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(Appeals), and the assessee

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

section 68, since an amount appearing as opening balance is also a credit and the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the nature and source of which was not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO?” 3. From the perusal of above listed grounds, department is in appeal primarily on two issues, one relating to the jurisdictional and legal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Section 68 of the Act in each of the corresponding year (as per the Table supra)\nwherein the fresh/addition in the unsecured loans (as aforesaid) were raised.\n5. That, there is no material on record which would even remotely prove that any adverse\ninference was drawn by the AO in the case of M/s Kishlay Snack Products in respect

SUNITA CHOUDHURY,MAKUM ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Largely On Account Of The Fact That Even At That Stage The Assessee Did Not Respond To The Notices Issued From His Office.

96,501/-by the I.T.A. No. 136/GTY/2024 Sunita Choudhary Id. AO by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act is without

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 credit amounting to Rs.8,94,55,000/-. He calculated the commission at the rate of 3% and in this way determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.9,21,96

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PANNALAL BHANSALI, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

68 of the Act b) Addition on account of Long Term - Rs.2,58,69,249/- Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed as exemption u/s. 10(38) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) c) Disallowance of loss from trading - Rs.20,22,293/- in commodity and F&O derivatives 2.2. In the addition and disallowance at (a) and (b) above, revenue is in appeal

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

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

96,131/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act. 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. 219/GTY/2024: 1. For that the initiation of reassessment proceeding on 28-07-2022 by issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and as such assessment

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

96,07,621/-]” 4. On appeal, ld. first Appellate Authority not only confirmed the view point of ld. AO rather enhanced the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of total sundry creditors shown by the assessee on the ground that liability to pay ceased. In other words, with the aid of Section 41 of the Act addition

M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

96,07,621/-]” 4. On appeal, ld. first Appellate Authority not only confirmed the view point of ld. AO rather enhanced the addition. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of total sundry creditors shown by the assessee on the ground that liability to pay ceased. In other words, with the aid of Section 41 of the Act addition

M/S. GANESHBARI TEA CO. (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.11/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Goneshbari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. ………....….........…..........….…… Appellant 4/1, Middleton Street, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcg7880Q] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Guwahati….………….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sumeet Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ps Thuingaleng, Acit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Dated 31-10-2022 Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

68,446/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delay in deposit of PF/ ESI. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the PF/ ESI contributions were duly deposited before the due date of filing of income tax return for the impugned assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68,972/-. 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee has submitted that it is a ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited in the books of ABCL Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. The assessee got contracts from three companies, namely Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai, Coastal Projects Limited, Hyderabad; Horizon Infrastructure Limited. These were sub-contracted on back