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]

Section 153A of the Act. He submitted that, the AO had only disputed the genuineness of the proceeds received in the disclosed bank account and added it by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68

FORTRIGHT CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 193/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Fortright Consultants Private Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Vs Guwahati Limited T-1, 3Rd Floor Shivam Apartment House No. 99, A.K. Azad Road Rehabari Guwahati -781008 [Pan : Aaccf2203K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-1, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Impugned Order Dated 31/03/2018 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal, Invalid & Bad-In-Law Being Passed In The Contraventions Of The Principles Of Natural Justice Without Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Findings & Observations Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati Made In His Order Dated 31/03/2018 Are All Perverse & Contrary To The Facts & Laws Of The Case.

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on irrelevant considerations, arbitrary grounds, on mere

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer further made an addition of unexplained

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer further made an addition of unexplained

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In this connection we note that the impugned amount has been

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) 7. vide order dated 23.06.2023 allowed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. CIT(A) observed

HUK WEALTH CONSULTANTS (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on irrelevant considerations, arbitrary grounds, on mere

NILKANTHA SAHA,MORIGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MORIGAON, MORIGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. On appeal this Tribunal deleted the impugned addition by holding as under: “15. Be it as it may, in the normal course, we would have restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh verification of the claim of the assessee that it had received advances from customers

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

Section 68 of the Act which relates to unexplained cash credit but in the case of the assessee there is no unexplained

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

Section 68 of the Act which relates to unexplained cash credit but in the case of the assessee there is no unexplained

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).

unexplained cash credit." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Dwarkadhish Investment P Ltd. reported in [2011] 330 ITR 0298, relevant portions of which is reproduced as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one Though in section 68

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement