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 under that Section and as per provisions of section 197(2). Other Expenses-Material consumed, labour Charge etc. 1

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

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

1,14,000/- and 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

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

TDS deductions made but no confirmation, ledger copy, bank statement and copy of ITRs of the individuals was given, even though Page 7 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 39/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dhar Construction Company. the assessee had assured to give the confirmations and the details within 5 days. Subsequently, notices under section 133(6) of the Act were issued

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