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

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

31. Further we observe that the assessee is maintaining mercantile system of accounting as per Section 145 of the Act except for the accounting of delayed payment surcharge on cash basis which means that the assessee is following hybrid system of accounting. The assessee being a Government Company was bound to follow the direction of the Ministry of Power

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

31. Further we observe that the assessee is maintaining mercantile system of accounting as per Section 145 of the Act except for the accounting of delayed payment surcharge on cash basis which means that the assessee is following hybrid system of accounting. The assessee being a Government Company was bound to follow the direction of the Ministry of Power

M/S. K. B. ASSOCIATES,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.472/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S K. B. Associates.....…………………………....................……….……Appellant Nilomani Phukan Path, Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005. [Pan: Aajfk6526E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati……..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. I. Gyaneshori Devi, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 19, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 29, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.09.2019 Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 08.12.2018. 2. When The Case Was Called, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of The Appeal File Shows That Even After Providing Opportunity, The Assessee Failed To Appear. It Seems That Assessee Is Not Interested To Pursue The Appeal. We, Therefore, Decide To Hear This Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Departmental Representative & Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

TDS Was made u/s 194 2. Other receipt 78,68,891 48,24,969 95,21,959 3. Total Receipts (1+2) 2,33,13,409 2,70,44,553 3,55,93,911 4. Income assessed 15,38,165 31,51,648 4938,610(returned) 5. Income as % of Turnover 6.60% 11.65% 13.87% (Returned) (4/3x100) 6 Section

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The same is confirmed and the appeal taken in this regard and this extent stands dismissed.” ITA Nos. 30, 31 & 32/GAU/2015 167/GAU/2016 242 & 243/GAU/2017 63 & 64/GAU/2018 AYs: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 2012-13 2008-09 & 2009-10 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 6. Mr. Goenka vehemently submits

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

31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided it against the assessee

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

31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided it against the assessee

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

31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided it against the assessee

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

31,74,000 10,58,060 Kohima 6409 K TOTAL: 38,21,040 62,44,455 75,10,020 25,43,426 5. TDS liability disputed in appeal (plus interest separately) 3,82,104 6,24,446 7,51,002 2,54,343 4.2. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided it against the assessee

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