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

section 145 of the Act merely on the ground that explanation for proportionately high refund of TDS is not furnished and consequently, in making huge addition of Rs. 98,50

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 under which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. ACHULA DARNEICHONG SAILO, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS deducted of Rs. 17,000/- and had also deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 2,28,95,200/- & Rs. 14,50,000/- totalling to Rs. 2,43,45,200/- during the year under consideration. The assessee also had high value banking transactions amounting to Rs. 47,29,500/- as per the details at page 2 of the assessment

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

50,511/- 7 Rlaz Uddin ABZPU5605M 1,01,016/- 8 Bibha Kumari FMIPS3876R 1,01,010/- 9 Somnath Biswas CPCPB6561C 3,03,030/- 10 Samsuddin AFXPU9620E 1,05,050/- 11 ShahaborAH AHPPA4078C 2,30,182/- 12 Mostufa Uddin AETPU6188C 2,22,223/- 13 Tazul Hussain ADCPH7747N 5,30,303/- Page 4 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 125/GTY/2020 Assessment Year

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

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

50,000/- Therefore you are show caused why the difference amount of Rs. 7,32,35,700/- should not be taxed in your hand under section 56(2)(X) of IT Act. Ans: That the property purchased by Greenwood Resorts Pvt Ltd on the value mentioned in sale deeds. The reason for purchase of property at value lesser that stamp

NORTECH POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A of the Act thereby making a disallowance of Rs. 14,11,692/- comprising of Rs. 9,61,667/- under Rule 8D2(ii) and Rs. 4,50,025/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition upon wrongly appreciation of facts that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 64,98,835/- which

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other

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

TDS. 17. We also take note that ld. CIT(A) has recorded the following finding in the impugned order partly sustaining the estimated disallowances: “It is yet further noted that the Assessing Officer had also averred that the Appellant had not furnished party-wise details and their addresses (of the parties to whom payments claimed under the expense head “Other