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

142(1) of the Act dated 17.10.2016 specifically asked the assessee to provide the details of other income, which included the LPS charges also. In reply on 27.10.2016, complete details of the other income were filed which are placed at pages 116 to 119 of the paepr book and clarification for the above accounting treatment of LPS charges on cash

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

142(1) of the Act dated 17.10.2016 specifically asked the assessee to provide the details of other income, which included the LPS charges also. In reply on 27.10.2016, complete details of the other income were filed which are placed at pages 116 to 119 of the paepr book and clarification for the above accounting treatment of LPS charges on cash

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

section 142(1) to which the assessee responded, providing a list with PAN numbers, names, and TDS deductions. However, detailed

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

142(1), requesting him to consider the applicable rate of 8.5% on total income instead. 2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee went before CIT, Appeals wherein the Assessee raised in the grounds of Appeal-3 a prayer to consider the statutory applicable rate of allowance u/sec 36(1)(viia) at 8.5% of the total income as provided in statute

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)

1), proviso thereon, would come to his rescue in case the payees have duly disclosed the receipts on which the TDS was supposed to have been made, in their return of income. Regarding the addition made under Section 69C of the Act it was averred that both of the authorities below have completely mis-directed themselves on the facts

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

142(1) of the Act. Relevant details were called for by the assessee and in response to the notices, assessee-company submitted audited accounts and copies of relevant documents as called for during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessment was completed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 and Income assessed

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

142(1) of the Act. Relevant details were called for by the assessee and in response to the notices, assessee-company submitted audited accounts and copies of relevant documents as called for during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessment was completed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 and Income assessed

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

142(1) of the Act. Relevant details were called for by the assessee and in response to the notices, assessee-company submitted audited accounts and copies of relevant documents as called for during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessment was completed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 and Income assessed

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

142(1) of the Act. Relevant details were called for by the assessee and in response to the notices, assessee-company submitted audited accounts and copies of relevant documents as called for during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessment was completed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 and Income assessed

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

142(1) of the Act. Relevant details were called for by the assessee and in response to the notices, assessee-company submitted audited accounts and copies of relevant documents as called for during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessment was completed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 and Income assessed

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire, which were duly served upon the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee complied with the said notices by appearing personally before the Assessing Officer and submitting various documents such as Trade Licenses, ST certificate, photocopies of TDS certificates, Bank statements of Vijaya Bank, Itanagar Branch in respect of A/C No.880100300001451 and Axis

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

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

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire, which were duly served upon the assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee complied with the said notices by appearing personally before the Assessing Officer and submitting various documents such as Trade Licenses, ST certificate, photocopies of TDS certificates, Bank statements of Vijaya Bank, Itanagar Branch in respect of A/C No.880100300001451 and Axis

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

Section-Rs. 2,07,198/- - 194A) TDS-194C Payment to Rs. 3,12,257/- Contractor (194C) 3. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA portal for filing of return of income. However, no return was filed by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1

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

TDS, large value claim of refund and large increase in capital in a year. Valid notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued. Various details were called for by the ld. AO, which the assessee has filed. Income assessed at Rs.4,84,36,311/- after making following disallowances :- Returned Income : Rs.1,21,98,600 ADD: Disallowance

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

142,83,99,477/- made by the Id. CIT (Appeals) all should be deleted in full. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case the Id. CIT (Appeals) was totally wrong in holding that the liabilities of Rs. 141,38,93,166/- claimed by way of Sundry Creditors as at 31/03/2012 has ceased to exist

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

142,83,99,477/- made by the Id. CIT (Appeals) all should be deleted in full. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case the Id. CIT (Appeals) was totally wrong in holding that the liabilities of Rs. 141,38,93,166/- claimed by way of Sundry Creditors as at 31/03/2012 has ceased to exist

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

142(1) of the Act, certain disallowances/additions were made which included disallowance u/s 43B of the Act at Rs. 44 Cr. for non-payment of the said sum on or before the due date of filing return of income, disallowance of interest paid on consumer security deposit of Rs. 16.62 Cr for non-deduction of tax at source, thus, calling

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

142(1) was issued on 29.11.2022 against which the appellant submitted his reply on 07.12.2022 explaining the fact that party with name as “Vinod” neither appears in the Sales Register nor in the Purchase register of the appellant. Further there is no transaction in the bank also with the said party. This signifies beyond any doubt that the appellant never