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

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

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

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)

154, grounds of appeal raised and submission filed by the Appellant. I find that while processing the return income, the AO CPC disallowed 30% of subcontractors payments u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to make TDS as per the information available in Audit report. I also find that before making such adjustment, the AO CPC had given the opportunity

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

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

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

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

section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchase made by the assessee." I.T.A. No.: 266/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rishi Agarwal. 26. To the same effect is also the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) wherein