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

section 40(b)(v) of the Act and duly authorized by the partnership deed. It is further noted that out of the aggregate amount of Rs. 1,30,05,216/­ (Rs. 8,10,000/­ for salary and Rs. 1,21,95,216/­ for commission) paid as remuneration/ commission, an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,18,55,4561­ was paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. KISHLAY FOOD (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

30 to 43D. A plain reading of the Section shows that the disallowances made under Section 43B in the computation of income from business, therefore form part of the profits and gains of business. This has been affirmed by the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Bench A, Hyderabad in the case of M/s Promantra Synergy Solutions

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

TDS u/s 194A of the Act of Rs. 345/- was also deposited. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AO issued statutory notices to the assessee but no response was received nor any return was filed within 30 days of the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee however, filed

SHRI SANJIBUR RAHMAN,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

30, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shillong dated 24.07.2018 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In response to the notice of hearing, an adjournment application was filed by the assessee on the ground that

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

30% u/s 40(a)(ia) and accordingly made disallowance of Rs.25,73,50,316/-. However, I find from the submission of the appellant that certain amounts were not liable for TDS but the same have been considered for disallowances. Further the cases covered by exemption u/s 10(26) and Form No.15G/15H have not been considered since the appellant could

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

30 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and again a reassessment order was passed on 18.12.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147. Therefore, proviso to this section would puts an embargo upon the powers

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

30 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited was reopened by issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and again a reassessment order was passed on 18.12.2017 under section 143(3) read with section 147. Therefore, proviso to this section would puts an embargo upon the powers

GOLDEN ARROW TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Id. AO has made the disallowance arbitrarily and without bringing on record any material to show that such payment to a person exceeded Rs. 1,80,0001- during the relevant year.” 3. Coming to ground no. 2 i.e disallowance of Rs. 20,413/-, which is 30

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SHILLONG vs. M/S. S.S. NETCOM (P) LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon’Ble& Dr. A.L.Saini, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.461/Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

TDS should be deductible in cases of payments made to individuals who are specified as Schedule Tribes under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India and thereby these Schedule Tribes are exempted from the provisions of Income Tax Act by virtue of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, when the income of the payeesare exempted from

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)

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 to the Appellant to explain the default. However, Appellant did not respond to the intimation/notice given by the AO CPO. The Appellant has submitted

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

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

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

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

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

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.4,30,00,000/- has been accepted and in assessment same has been

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

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.4,30,00,000/- has been accepted and in assessment same has been

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

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.4,30,00,000/- has been accepted and in assessment same has been