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

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section 4

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

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section 4

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

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section 4

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

TDS-1, Guwahati [AO] was not justified in treating the appellant as assessee in default in respect of Rs. 3,82,104/- without bringing on record any material to show that any part of the related amount of Rs. 38,21,040/- paid by the appellant as Rent was 'income' chargeable to tax under section 4

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

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 and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law inholding that the provision for payment of VDA, PFD (Bank Contribution) and HRA to staff as allowable without it being crystalized and as such

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 - 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

TDS on Advertisement Net Total Income 4,91,97,800/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who made detailed submissions and most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted and assessee partly succeeded. 4. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. D/R, vehemently supported the order

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

4 to this provision, then it would contemplate that the power to issue notice under section 153A for six assessment years stands on a different footing from the 24 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited power to issue notice under section 153A for relevant assessment year. In other words, the original scheme

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

4 to this provision, then it would contemplate that the power to issue notice under section 153A for six assessment years stands on a different footing from the 24 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Limited power to issue notice under section 153A for relevant assessment year. In other words, the original scheme

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 under that Section and as per provisions of section 197(2). Other Expenses-Material consumed, labour Charge etc. 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in deleting Construction expenses, labour charges/Salary, store and spare expenses, other direct expenses, other expenses such as office expenses, travel & conveyance etc. disallowed expenses of Rs.3,62,37,711/­ as being

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

Section 44AD applicable on some contractor is not to be applied on every time on every type of business. Therefore, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to take an estimated income at 4% and credit of income disclosed by the assessee is to be given of Rs.6,03,762/-. In other words, at 4%, the total addition will be Rs.12

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

4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (8) DIT v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) (9) CIT v. Neo Poly Pack

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

4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (7) CIT V. A.K.J. Security Printers: 264 ITR 276 (Del) (8) DIT v. Apparel Export Promotion Council 244 ITR 734 (Del) (9) CIT v. Neo Poly Pack

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 &

TDS statement for Quarter 1 in the Assessment Year 2014-15, for Quarter 2 in Assessment Year 2014-15, for Quarter 4 in Assessment Year 2014-15 and for Quarter 4 in Assessment Year 2015-16, respectively and passed orders. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering

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 &

TDS statement for Quarter 1 in the Assessment Year 2014-15, for Quarter 2 in Assessment Year 2014-15, for Quarter 4 in Assessment Year 2014-15 and for Quarter 4 in Assessment Year 2015-16, respectively and passed orders. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering

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 &

TDS statement for Quarter 1 in the Assessment Year 2014-15, for Quarter 2 in Assessment Year 2014-15, for Quarter 4 in Assessment Year 2014-15 and for Quarter 4 in Assessment Year 2015-16, respectively and passed orders. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering