GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

19-20. The interest payment has been paid yearly after deducting TDS. A chart in respect of the same is enclosed. I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. 20. That Sir our case for A.Y 14-15 has been scrutinized i.e. the initial year in which major loan of Rs.4

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 on commission paid to partners. The ld. AO has alleged that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on the commission paid to its partners. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with the case placing reliance on the decision of ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Assam Tea House, Chandigarh Vs. Department of Income Tax in ITA No.759/Chd/2011 observed

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

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

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

TDS-1, Guwahati. Considering the material gathered during the course of survey, the learned Assessing Officer assumed that assessee Joint Venture failed to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to ECI and u/s 194H in respect of payments made to Ramky, therefore, a show cause letter was issued on 22.01.2019, Ramky

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

TDS-1, Guwahati. Considering the material gathered during the course of survey, the learned Assessing Officer assumed that assessee Joint Venture failed to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194C in respect of payments made to ECI and u/s 194H in respect of payments made to Ramky, therefore, a show cause letter was issued on 22.01.2019, Ramky

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)

section 201, as it could not be uploaded online earlier by the appellant and the concerned accountant due to certain technical glitch for reasons beyond the control of the appellant. The addition/disallowance is liable to be deleted in full. v. For that the appellant begs leave of putting forward additional ground/grounds in addition to modification/substitution of the above ground

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

2,97,16,776 considering the same as bogus expenditure. 4.3 I have gone through the assessment order and record available. The scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for the assessment year 2018- 19 for M/s. Dhar Construction Company under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the assessment year 2018-19 was completed with addition

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other