INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. BIRI KAKUM, ESS SECTOR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Response Given By The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition With The Following Finding:

income is not subject to TDS or not shown in Form 26AS. provided the area and status conditions are satisfied. The appellant has furnished Scheduled Tribe Certificate Proof of residence in Arunachal Pradesh Business

M/S. K. B. ASSOCIATES,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.472/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S K. B. Associates.....…………………………....................……….……Appellant Nilomani Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005. [Pan: Aajfk6526E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. I. Gyaneshori Devi, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 29, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.09.2019 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 08.12.2018. 2. When The Case Was Called, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of The Appeal File Shows That Even After Providing Opportunity, The Assessee Failed To Appear. It Seems That Assessee Is Not Interested To Pursue The Appeal. We, Therefore, Decide To Hear This Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Departmental Representative & Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

income of Rs.49,38,610/- in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee is engaged in the business of collection and recovery of overdue instalments from customers on behalf of bank, financial institutions and NBFs. TDS

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS return in PAN of assessee, appears in 26AS of the assessee. When assessee denies receipt of such income, the onus shifts on the Revenue to bring evidence on record to show that the said amount was actual income of the assessee. In absence of such evidence, the amount appearing in 26AS cannot be treated as income of the assessee

ANUP TRADE AND TRANSPORT (P) LTD.,,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

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

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

TDS thereon”. 10. An analysis of the Bank statement would suggest that on 17.11.2014, the assessee has received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s. Amtek Financial Consultants Pvt. Limited. It repaid this amount on 28.02.2015. This 7 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anup Trade And Transport (P) Limited amount went to M/s. Associated Infraprojects Pvt. Limited, who had given

PACPL BIPL JV,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T., CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL A.O. - ITO, WARD-3(3), GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Pacpl Bipl Jv Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Jurisdictional A.O. – Ito, 8Th Floor, Unit Ii, Sethi Trust Ward-3(3), Guwahati. Building, G.S. Road, Vs. Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam- 781005. Pan: Aadap 9047 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, Advocate Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A) For Short Hereafter] Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Adjudicating Upon Ground No. 1 Of Appeal Before Him By Holding It To Be General In Nature Though The Determination Of Total Income At Rs. 39846190/- Under Section 143(1), Instead Of Returned Income Of Nil & Seeking Carry Forward Of Current Business Of (-) Rs. 14640/-, Was Contrary To The Relevant Materials, Namely, The Facts & Materials Showing That The Appellant Was Not An Assessee- In- Default Within The Meaning Of First Proviso To Section 201, As Read With Second Proviso To Clause (Ia) Of Sub-Section (A) Of Section 40 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Act For Short Hereafter)

business loss of (-) Rs. 14,604/- for the A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee while filing its return of income uploaded contract account along with tax audit report by showing amount of Rs. 23,09,04,594/- was debited as sub-contract expenses and out of the aforesaid amount, the assessee consider that TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. M/S. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

business. Income of Rs.1,21,98,600/- declared in e-return filed on 16-10-2017 for the AY 2017-18. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS for high ratio of refund to TDS

SANJOY SAHA,KARIMGANJ vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

income of the Appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the Appellant furnished some ledger accounts and explained that the comparison of margins as done in the assessment order was not justified. It was averred that commission on consignment sales has no risk and hence, margins are low. There is no merit in the Appellant's contention. The Appellant did not make

RAMKY ECI JV,TELEGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS-1, Guwahati. Considering the material gathered during the course of survey, the learned Assessing Officer assumed that assessee Joint Venture failed to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to ECI and u/s 194H in respect of payments made to Ramky, therefore, a show cause letter was issued on 22.01.2019, Ramky

RAMKY ECI JV,TELANGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS-1, Guwahati. Considering the material gathered during the course of survey, the learned Assessing Officer assumed that assessee Joint Venture failed to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to ECI and u/s 194H in respect of payments made to Ramky, therefore, a show cause letter was issued on 22.01.2019, Ramky

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

business of generating and supplying electricity. The licensee does not collect the electricity duty for its own consumption or utilization. If the licensee collects the duty but does not pay the same to the Government, the statute provides mechanism for the Government to recover the same from the licensee. Even in a case where the licensee is unable to recover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. KALIKA JEWELLERS, AGARTALA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Gty/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [Pan: Aafj5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Shillong, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/06/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs.8,81,708/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,36,806/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed Stock. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.16,20,750/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Making Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia). 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,34,640/- & Rs.83,385/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Advertisement Expense U/S 40(A)(Ia).” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Jewellery Business. Income Of Rs.56,80,854/- Was Declared In The Return Filed On 23/09/2010. The Case Was Manually Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Service Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Called For Various

business. Income of Rs.56,80,854/- was declared in the return filed on 23/09/2010. The case was manually selected for scrutiny followed by service of notice u/s 143(2) & 143(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer called for various I.T.A. No. 85/GTY/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Kalika Jewellers 2 details of transactions carried out during the year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments

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

business income of the assessee and the assessee has opted a benefit in respect of such trading liability in later year by way of remission or cessation of the liability. In such a case, the Section says that whatever benefit has arisen to the assessee in the later year by way of remission of the liability will be brought

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

business income of the assessee and the assessee has opted a benefit in respect of such trading liability in later year by way of remission or cessation of the liability. In such a case, the Section says that whatever benefit has arisen to the assessee in the later year by way of remission of the liability will be brought