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, 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

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

TDS return for the fourth quarter of the AY 2015-16. The demand raised is Rs. 38,600 which includes Rs. 38,600 under section 234E of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the levy of late filing fee under section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned

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

TDS return for the fourth quarter of the AY 2015-16. The demand raised is Rs. 38,600 which includes Rs. 38,600 under section 234E of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the levy of late filing fee under section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. During the course of the appeal the Ld. AR has filed written submission as under: I.T.A. No.: 266/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rishi Agarwal. “1. Ground No. 2 Section 69C a) No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS on payments. However, bills supporting the transactions were not provided, making it difficult to verify the genuineness of the expenses. The AO proceeded with the proposed additions under section 69C, resulting in a total assessed income 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 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