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

Section 250(4) of the Act by the undersigned, it is noted as under: 1. That, the Appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of construction in the state of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and with regard to his construction business he has incurred contract expenses of Rs. 3,49,72,349/- and deducted TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSAM COOERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have given relief on an issue involving a provision for arrear payment

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15. Page 1 of 3 ITA No. 35-36 / GTY / 2025 Special Judge Assam-Vs- The ITO, TDS-2 AY: 2014-15 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) for TDS

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15. Page 1 of 3 ITA No. 35-36 / GTY / 2025 Special Judge Assam-Vs- The ITO, TDS-2 AY: 2014-15 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) for TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA vs. KALIKA JEWELLERS, AGARTALA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Gty/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [Pan: Aafj5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Shillong, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/06/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs.8,81,708/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,36,806/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed Stock. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.16,20,750/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Making Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia). 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,34,640/- & Rs.83,385/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Advertisement Expense U/S 40(A)(Ia).” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Jewellery Business. Income Of Rs.56,80,854/- Was Declared In The Return Filed On 23/09/2010. The Case Was Manually Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Service Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Called For Various

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2010-11, on the following grounds:- “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by A.O. of Rs.8,81,708/- on account of unexplained expenditure. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4

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

250 crores under the claimed field of operations, i.e., “Civil Contractors", however, the major expenditure amounting to Rs. 249 crores has been made on purchases as shown in the ITR. Salaries and Wages amount to 10 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Rs. 14 lakhs only. There are no sub-contract expenses incurred

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

250 crores under the claimed field of operations, i.e., “Civil Contractors", however, the major expenditure amounting to Rs. 249 crores has been made on purchases as shown in the ITR. Salaries and Wages amount to 10 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Rs. 14 lakhs only. There are no sub-contract expenses incurred

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

4 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 119/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achula Darneichong Sailo. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant, the facts on record and the applicable law in this regard. In this context it is relevant to refer to Section 10 under Chapter III of the I.T Act which deals with incomes which do not form

ASSAM GAS COMPANY LIMITED,DULIAJAN vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1/DBR, DIBRUGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, NOIDA [hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)”], dated 27.01.2025. 2 In this case, the assessee had claimed deduction for bonus payment u/s 43B of the Act on the ground that all legally permissible timelines were complied with. Secondly, the claim

MRINAL DAS,BAKSA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 05.06.2024, I.T.A. No.: 255/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrinal Das. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 01.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal

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

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.12.2024. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has recorded in his order dated 01.12.2019 that the case was selected for scrutiny on several grounds, one being high ratio

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 1 of 5 ITA Nos. 263-264 / GTY / 2024 Friday Hinge -Vs- ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati AY: 2020-21 & AY 2021-22 called the ‘Act’) and pertain to the Assessment Years [AY] 2020-21 to 2021-22. 2. The grievances of the assessee in both the appeals are similar

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Page 1 of 5 ITA Nos. 263-264 / GTY / 2024 Friday Hinge -Vs- ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati AY: 2020-21 & AY 2021-22 called the ‘Act’) and pertain to the Assessment Years [AY] 2020-21 to 2021-22. 2. The grievances of the assessee in both the appeals are similar

SHRI PRABHUDAYAL BERIWAL,JYOTINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DIBRUGARH

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.02.2024. 1.1 In this case, a survey was conducted on 18.07.2017 on M/s Kaliapani Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. A Director in this Company had apparently given a statement under oath

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. BIRI KAKUM, ESS SECTOR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Response Given By The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition With The Following Finding:

Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 16.04.2025. 2 In this case, the Ld. AO found that the assessee had made substantial purchase from suppliers, who are either non-filers or have filed non-business ITRs

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)

250, which is conterminus with the learned AO, the copy of the prescribed certificate from the Accountant in Form 26A that was physically submitted before the learned AO during assessment proceedings under section 143(3) in terms of first proviso to section 201, as it could not be uploaded online earlier by the appellant and the concerned accountant

JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Act, dated 18.04.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the source of the investment was the payments I received after completing works for individuals who engaged me as a contractor for construction of residential houses, walls, septic

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2018-19 dated 23.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3)/143(3A)/143(3B) of the Act, dated 18.03.2021. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: “i) On the facts of the case and in law, whether