JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

justice, fair play and good-conscience.” 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the order has been made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act as no return of income was filed and the return was filed after the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. DR also relied upon the page 5 para 4.5 of the assessment

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.

natural justice, the same is bad in law and unsustainable. 7. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in providing services

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice. The Ld. AR also read out the provisions of section 69C of the Act and stated that since the expenses were recorded in the books of account, section 69C of the Act was also not applicable. Our attention was also drawn to pages 13 to 16 of the paper book. The net profit ratio was 8% before depreciation

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

natural justice and therefore, the same is bad in law. 9. For that in absence of DIN being quoted in the face of the order the same is bad in law. 10. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

natural justice and therefore, the same is bad in law. 9. For that in absence of DIN being quoted in the face of the order the same is bad in law. 10. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

natural justice and therefore, the same is bad in law. 9. For that in absence of DIN being quoted in the face of the order the same is bad in law. 10. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

natural justice and therefore, the same is bad in law. 9. For that in absence of DIN being quoted in the face of the order the same is bad in law. 10. For that your appellant craves leave of your honours to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the 20 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the 20 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer

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)

natural justice under section 143(1)(a). As such, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted in full. iii. For that, on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in fact in sustaining the addition of Rs.39860794 by inter-alia holding that even during the course of Scrutiny assessment proceedings the appellant failed

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

TDS on Advertisement Net Total Income 4,91,97,800/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who made detailed submissions and most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted and assessee partly succeeded. 4. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. D/R, vehemently supported the order

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural law of justice. 2. That the learned assessing officer is wrong in comparing the commission earned on consignment transactions with the normal profit margin of the assessee and estimate commission on consignment sales suo-moto. 3. The appellant craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,TRIPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also