M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

TDS in respect of such late payment surcharge which fact too establishes that they have not accounted for liability. Moreover, as per the practical trend, there is no reasonable certainty of collection of such amount. In such circumstances applying the 3 tests laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Excel Industries (supra) to the facts

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

TDS in respect of such late payment surcharge which fact too establishes that they have not accounted for liability. Moreover, as per the practical trend, there is no reasonable certainty of collection of such amount. In such circumstances applying the 3 tests laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Excel Industries (supra) to the facts

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 139 on 30/10/2018 vide acknowledgement no. 360923021301018 disclosing taxable income of Rs.63858754 and tax paid thereon of Rs.21113619 and (3) the PACPL had duly incorporated the amount of Rs.132869313, on which TDS

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)

TDS was supposed to have been made, in their return of income. Regarding the addition made under Section 69C of the Act it was averred that both of the authorities below have completely mis-directed themselves on the facts of the case and have added figures which were never shown to be against the persons who have been mentioned

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

3) of section 145 of the Act merely on the ground that explanation for proportionately high refund of TDS is not furnished

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

section 68. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid addition related to an item of regular assessment and cannot be the subject matter of addition u/s 153A. 3. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought. to have deleted the addition made

ANUP TRADE AND TRANSPORT (P) LTD.,,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

TDS and submitted relevant evidence showing the payment of interest. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of the case of assessee submitted before us that M/s. Amtek Financial Consultants Pvt. Limited is assessed to tax. Its assessment was framed under section 147 read with section 143(3

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

3. Brief facts of the case are that in all the above appeals under consideration, admittedly there was a delay in filing of TDS statement and during the processing of TDS return, the AO(TDS) raised demand by way of intimations issued u/s.200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s.234E for ITA Nos. 172, 173, 174 & 177 delayed filing

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

3. Brief facts of the case are that in all the above appeals under consideration, admittedly there was a delay in filing of TDS statement and during the processing of TDS return, the AO(TDS) raised demand by way of intimations issued u/s.200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s.234E for ITA Nos. 172, 173, 174 & 177 delayed filing

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

3. Brief facts of the case are that in all the above appeals under consideration, admittedly there was a delay in filing of TDS statement and during the processing of TDS return, the AO(TDS) raised demand by way of intimations issued u/s.200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s.234E for ITA Nos. 172, 173, 174 & 177 delayed filing

ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERING INDEPENDENT AGARTALA,AGARTALA vs. DCIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 172, 173 & 177/GTY/2020 are allowed while ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 &

3. Brief facts of the case are that in all the above appeals under consideration, admittedly there was a delay in filing of TDS statement and during the processing of TDS return, the AO(TDS) raised demand by way of intimations issued u/s.200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s.234E for ITA Nos. 172, 173, 174 & 177 delayed filing

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

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

TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act,1961, whereas no actual payment was made. 3. On the facts

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 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS on payments to such Tribal People and thereafter requiring these Persons to furnish their Returns of Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that

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 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS on payments to such Tribal People and thereafter requiring these Persons to furnish their Returns of Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that

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 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS on payments to such Tribal People and thereafter requiring these Persons to furnish their Returns of Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that

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 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS on payments to such Tribal People and thereafter requiring these Persons to furnish their Returns of Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that

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 10(26) of the Act and thus, in the absence of any tax liability of such Tribal People, it would be a fruitless exercise to first deduct TDS on payments to such Tribal People and thereafter requiring these Persons to furnish their Returns of Income to claim refund of the TDS. 17. We also take note that