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

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

2.—For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 13. A perusal of this section would indicate that where a search has been conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act upon the assessee, then the assessment

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

2.—For the purposes of the fourth proviso, "asset" shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. 13. A perusal of this section would indicate that where a search has been conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act upon the assessee, then the assessment

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

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)

2. Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the issue of alleged non-deduction of TDS was duly argued before both the authorities below and it was demonstrated that either TDS was not deductible in some cases, or even though the TDS had not been made in other cases but evidence of such receipts having been disclosed

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.

section 234A of the Act by the ld. AO at Rs. 1,49,448/- was bad in law and untenable. 6. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the impugned appellate order ignoring and without controverting the various written submissions of the appellant, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without allowing any proper

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

142(1) of the Act. Page 2 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 125/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Paran Jyoti Saikia. 4. The assessee was asked to furnish the details about the contract expenses of Rs. 3,49,72,349/-. The assessee has furnished the name and PAN of the sub-contractors. However, ld. AO was not satisfied with the claim

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 read with notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as the case of the assessee is selected in Limited Scrutiny. 38. Further, whether the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation was part of Limited Scrutiny or not, ld. CIT(A) has directed ld. AO to give a specific finding on this issue at the time

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 read with notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as the case of the assessee is selected in Limited Scrutiny. 38. Further, whether the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation was part of Limited Scrutiny or not, ld. CIT(A) has directed ld. AO to give a specific finding on this issue at the time

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 read with notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as the case of the assessee is selected in Limited Scrutiny. 38. Further, whether the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation was part of Limited Scrutiny or not, ld. CIT(A) has directed ld. AO to give a specific finding on this issue at the time

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 read with notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as the case of the assessee is selected in Limited Scrutiny. 38. Further, whether the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation was part of Limited Scrutiny or not, ld. CIT(A) has directed ld. AO to give a specific finding on this issue at the time

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 read with notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as the case of the assessee is selected in Limited Scrutiny. 38. Further, whether the issue regarding disallowance of depreciation was part of Limited Scrutiny or not, ld. CIT(A) has directed ld. AO to give a specific finding on this issue at the time

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

142(1) to which the assessee responded, providing a list with PAN numbers, names, and TDS deductions. However, detailed confirmations, ledgers, bank statements, and ITR copies were not provided. Notices under section 133(6) were issued to a sample of individuals to verify the genuineness of expenses. Some individuals responded with the required details, while others did not. Payments made

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. ACHULA DARNEICHONG SAILO, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS deducted of Rs. 17,000/- and had also deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 2,28,95,200/- & Rs. 14,50,000/- totalling to Rs. 2,43,45,200/- during the year under consideration. The assessee also had high value banking transactions amounting to Rs. 47,29,500/- as per the details at page 2 of the assessment

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

TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26). 3. Claim for large exempt Income (Business ITR). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices u/s 142

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

TDS is deducted by a deductor who is not from the areas or state mentioned in section 10(26). 3. Claim for large exempt Income (Business ITR). Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021 and notices u/s 142

K B ASSOCIATES,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Bench: Ld AO. Full compliance was not even after penalty u/s 274 r.w.s 272A(1)(d) was imposed for incomplete compliance. Further, in the appeal proceeding also, the appellant has filed written submission only with respect to ground of appeal no 6. No details have been furnished except form no 26. Under the circumstances, the contention of the appellant all the compliances were made is totally incorrect. Under the circumstances, I find that Ld AO has correctly rejected the books of the appellant an

2. i) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Id. AO was not justified in arbitrary rejecting the duly audited and regularly maintained books of account by invoking powers under sub-section (3) of section 145 of the Act merely on the ground that explanation for proportionately