TRENISTONE D SANGMA,AMPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - GOALPARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

TDS-194C Payment to Rs. 3,12,257/- Contractor (194C) 3. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee through ITBA portal for filing of return of income. However, no return was filed by the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24.09.2021 asking

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 deductions. However, detailed confirmations, ledgers, bank statements, and ITR copies were not provided. Notices under section 133(6) were

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

Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the additions made by the A.O are deleted and the appellant’s grounds are allowed. Accordingly, in the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” 6. The Ld. DR in the course of the appeal submitted that the facts of the case in this year are same

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 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 based on conjectures & surmises. In doing

RAITANI ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD,GUWAHATI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, GUWAHATI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Raitani Engineering Works V/S. Jcut, Range-3, (P) Ltd., Railway Colony, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan Bazar, Guwahati- G.S. Road, Christan 781001 Basti, Guwahati- [Pan No.Aaacr 6691 K] 781005 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri Rabindro Singh, Jcit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-07-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 06-09-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guwahati’S Order Dated 19.02.2014 Passed In Case No.Guwa-60/2013-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. The Assessee’S Detailed Paper Book Running Into 132 Pages Comprising Of Various Documents, The Assessing Officer’S Notice During Scrutiny, Cash Book Of Assessee’S Head Office, Computation, Financial Statements; Stands Perused.

section 145 of the Act and so estimated the net profit at Rs.2,86,70,423/- @ 6% of the total turnover i.e. Rs.47,78,40,398/- over and above 3.78% of net profit already disclosed by the assessee. aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal CIT(A), who was pleased to confirm the action of AO. aggrieved, assessee is before

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

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

6 SCC 747], the aggregate addition of RS.2,92,20,684/- on account of VAT remission and interest subsidy, made by the AO on this account, are hereby deleted. Since, the above amounts have been found to be exigible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act, consequential ground qua permitting the deduction under section 80IC in respect of disallowance

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

6. We have considered the facts and find that in the absence of the necessary evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Ld. AO to allow the exemption from the liability of TDS on account of certificates u/s 10(26) of the Act and also carry out certain other verifications, which is tantamount to setting aside the order

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

TDS statement filed under section 226AS by the prayer. Therefore, there is no basis to make this addition, it is deleted. 10. Under other grounds, the assessee has challenged levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B & 234C. It is consequential in nature. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court

RAM CHANDRA AGARWALA,BONGAIGAON vs. ITO, WARD -1, BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40A(3) of the Act (incorrectly mentioned at ₹5,67,225/- on account of disallowances of the income from other sources and deductions under Chapter -VIA of the Act in the appellate order of the Ld. Addl./Joint CIT(A)). Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) who has considered

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

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 deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid

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 deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid

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 deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid

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 deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent- authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent." 8. We take note that the facts of the aforesaid

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

6 & 7/GTY/2024 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2017-18 and ITA No. 224/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 014. In these appeals, the assessee has challenged the addition on legal issue as well as in merit. For the sake of convenience, we would first take the facts from A.Y. 2016-17 and decide the issue accordinly. The grounds

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