MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before we embark upon an enquiry as to what is the true procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Act when search is conducted on the premises of an assessee, we think it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic points of the scheme of search

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Before we embark upon an enquiry as to what is the true procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Act when search is conducted on the premises of an assessee, we think it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic points of the scheme of search

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. KISHLAY FOOD (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • income-tax Officer - Ward

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) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, when the income of the payeesare exempted from

NORTECH POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act thereby making a disallowance of Rs. 14,11,692/- comprising of Rs. 9,61,667/- under Rule 8D2(ii) and Rs. 4,50,025/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition upon wrongly appreciation of facts that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 64,98,835/- which

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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 143(3) of the Act and no such additions (estimated addition) was made in the case of the appellant for any of the preceding or subsequent assessment year. 4. That the appellant craves leaves to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future.” 4. The Revenue is in appeal before

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

11-5-465, Criminal Court Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad- 04. (PAN: AACAR6483R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Md. Afjal, Advocate Respondent by : I. Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT Date of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders

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

11-5-465, Criminal Court Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad- 04. (PAN: AACAR6483R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Md. Afjal, Advocate Respondent by : I. Gyaneshori Devi, JCIT Date of Hearing : 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders

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

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

11,20,000/-; respectively. Learned lower authorities hold that the assessee had not deducted TDS on the former two payments. Mr. Goenka’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee had deducted TDS involving the former two claims as on 04.04.2008 and 12.05.2008 i.e. in next financial year 2008-09 respectively. We therefore deem it appropriate

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

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

11,20,000/-; respectively. Learned lower authorities hold that the assessee had not deducted TDS on the former two payments. Mr. Goenka’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee had deducted TDS involving the former two claims as on 04.04.2008 and 12.05.2008 i.e. in next financial year 2008-09 respectively. We therefore deem it appropriate

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

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

11,20,000/-; respectively. Learned lower authorities hold that the assessee had not deducted TDS on the former two payments. Mr. Goenka’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee had deducted TDS involving the former two claims as on 04.04.2008 and 12.05.2008 i.e. in next financial year 2008-09 respectively. We therefore deem it appropriate

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

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

11,20,000/-; respectively. Learned lower authorities hold that the assessee had not deducted TDS on the former two payments. Mr. Goenka’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee had deducted TDS involving the former two claims as on 04.04.2008 and 12.05.2008 i.e. in next financial year 2008-09 respectively. We therefore deem it appropriate

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

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

11,20,000/-; respectively. Learned lower authorities hold that the assessee had not deducted TDS on the former two payments. Mr. Goenka’s only plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee had deducted TDS involving the former two claims as on 04.04.2008 and 12.05.2008 i.e. in next financial year 2008-09 respectively. We therefore deem it appropriate