GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‘TPO’) within the meaning of section 92CA of the Income Tax Act after necessary approval. Subsequently ld. TPO passed the order under section 92CA of the Act on 27.10.2017 suggesting the upward adjustment of Rs.43,67,295/- for Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) and downward adjustment in respect

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‘TPO’) within the meaning of section 92CA of the Income Tax Act after necessary approval. Subsequently ld. TPO passed the order under section 92CA of the Act on 27.10.2017 suggesting the upward adjustment of Rs.43,67,295/- for Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) and downward adjustment in respect

ASSAM BIO ETHANOL PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-1(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: The Drp Was That The

section 270A of the Act.” 2. Before us, right at the outset, the Ld. AR made a statement at the I.T.A. No. 288/GTY/2024 Assam Bio Ethanol Private Limited Bar that the assessee was not pressing grounds of appeal numbers, 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Thereafter, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the TPO completely disregarded the transfer pricing report

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Pricing Officer during the course of assessment/reassessment proceedings. These time limits are either from the end of the financial year in which the notice for initiation of the proceedings was served or from the end of the assessment year to which the proceedings relate. It is proposed to amend the aforesaid sections, i.e., 153 and 153B so as to provide

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Pricing Officer during the course of assessment/reassessment proceedings. These time limits are either from the end of the financial year in which the notice for initiation of the proceedings was served or from the end of the assessment year to which the proceedings relate. It is proposed to amend the aforesaid sections, i.e., 153 and 153B so as to provide

M/S. BHARTIA-SMSIL(JV),GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

8. We find that the above view of the Ld. Pr. CIT is not correct. In view of the aforesaid discussion, moreover, the coordinate bench has also examined the issue in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.1722/Bang/2017. Admittedly, in this case, the order has been revised purely on the basis that the assessing officer

SHREE SAI SMELTERS (I) LIMITED,BYRNIHAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.228/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong

13 Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd. Assessment Year:2014-15 “repeal” and that since the present case was concerned with the omission of Section 280ZA, Section 24 would have no application. 20. Shri Prasad is correct in relying upon these two Constitution Bench judgments for they do indeed say that in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the word

SHIVANI ISPAT AND ROLLING MILL (P) LTD.,BYRNIHAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.227/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Shivani Ispatand Rolling Mill Vs. Acit, Circle-Shillong (P) Ltd. 13Th Mile, Tamulkuchi, Byrnihat, G.S. Road, Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcs 3465 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri J.P. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri T. Hunar, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- Shillong, In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Shg/10083/2018-19 Dated 17.04.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) / 92C(4) / 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 30/11/2018. 2.When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 10.06.2020, Passed By The Tribunal In The Case Of M/S Raipur Steel Casting India (P) Ltd. & Srinath Ji Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 895& 1035/Kol/2019, For Assessment Year 2014-15.Wherein Thetribunal Held That Effect Of Omission Of Clause (I) Of Section 92Ba W.E.F 01.04.2017 Had The Effect Of It Being Omitted From Its Inception Hence, Reference

13 Shivani Ispat and Rolling Mill (P) Ltd. Assessment Year:2014-15 “repeal” and that since the present case was concerned with the omission of Section 280ZA, Section 24 would have no application. 20. Shri Prasad is correct in relying upon these two Constitution Bench judgments for they do indeed say that in Section 6 of the General Clauses

M/S. G.D. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI`

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

price in respect of assessment years commencing on or before 01.04.2016. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record. The Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s DVC Emta Coal Mines Ltd. (supra) while further relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

transferred to Pension Trust as per GOA notification) Page 4 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 256/Gau/2019 C.O. No.: 13/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. Be that as it may, I have not found any adverse comments of the CAG in this behalf. In item 2.8 of the Notes on Account of the 9th Annual Report

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

8. That the Authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 50,40,340/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 9. That the Authorities erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Pine Animations Ltd & shares of M/s. Jackson Investments

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

8. That the Authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 50,40,340/- as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 9. That the Authorities erred in treating the capital gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Pine Animations Ltd & shares of M/s. Jackson Investments

ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

13 applicants secured funds for the purpose of contributing to the share capital of the assessee therein, on account of share application money. In other words, those 19 applicants collected funds on account of share application money in their respective companies and that money was contributed to the share capital of the assessee. 15 out of the 39 applicants procured

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

transferred either to Aarda Foundation or the appellant Mr. Manoj Anand on the same day. This also shows the suspicious nature of activity being carried out by M/s Urch Trading Pvt. Ltd. without any business rationale. Considering the above facts of the case and in law, I fully concur with the findings given by the AO in the assessment order

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

section 37 of the Act. Thus the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is reversed and the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 11. From perusal of the above finding of this Tribunal in case of Greenply Industries Limited (supra), we find that the same is squarely applicable on the issue raised before us in the instant appeal

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS 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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD 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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India