FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

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

10(26) as TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section

FRIDAY HINGE,MEGHALAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

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

10(26) as TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

section 251 I.T.A. No.: 50/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Meghalaya Cooperative Apex Bank Limited. of the Act with effect from 01.06.2001. Further, the evidence for claiming exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act was not produced before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings nor even before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The finding

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

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

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:

TDS provisions does not ipso facto become unverifiable if supported by books of accounts and confirmations. In view of the above discussion, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 9. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 are against in restricting the exemption u/s 10(26) from I.T.A. No. 170/GTY/2025 Biri Kakum Rs.8.65,22,919/- to Rs.5,09,65,106/- by the AO. Section

TRIDENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

TDS I.T.A. No. 254/GTY/2024 Trident Infraprojects Private Limited under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts income

TRENISTONE D SANGMA,AMPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - GOALPARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

26) of the Income Tax Act, despite the facts and circumstances of the case warranting such benefits. (iv) The Assessing Officer failed to accept the income tax return filed on September 4, 2021, in response to the notice issued under Section 148. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed return of income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SHILLONG vs. M/S. S.S. NETCOM (P) LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble& Dr. A.L.Saini, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.461/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

TDS should be deductible in cases of payments made to individuals who are specified as Schedule Tribes under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India and thereby these Schedule Tribes are exempted from the provisions of Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 10(26

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SHRI PARAN JYOTI SAIKIA, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 10(26) of the Act. Thus, notwithstanding that there is no legal requirement for ensuring furnishing of ITR by the person from whom TDS

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

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

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

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

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

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

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

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

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

Section 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S.S. Godara, Am S. A. No.01/Gau/2020 (In Ita No.477/Gau/2019) & M/S Jack N Jill, Dimapur Vs. Acit, Circle-Dimapur, Dimapur Solo Complex, Hazi Park Road, Hongkong Market, Dimapur, Nagaland, Pin-797112. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aalfj0244L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Mody, Ca Respondent By : Shri Jayanta Mridha, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara: This Assessee’S Stay Application S.A No.01/Gau/20 Seeks To Restrain The Department From Effecting Outstanding Demand Of Rs.3,74,133/- Out Of The Total Sum Of Rs.467379/- Arising From Both The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing/Adding Rent Payment Of Rs.11,46,312/- For Non-Deduction Of Tds During The Course Of Assessment Framed On 26.11.2018 As Affirmed In The Lower Appellate Order Under Challenge.

TDS during the course of assessment framed on 26.11.2018 as affirmed in the lower appellate order under challenge. 2 S. A. No.01/Gau/2020 & M/s Jack N Jill, Dimapur Heard both the parties. Case file perused. With both the parties’ consent, we proceed to decide the assessee’s main appeal ITA No.477/Gau/2019. 3 Coming to merits of the sole issue of correctness