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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also

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

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

TDS. His case is that the assessee had not availed any technical services from its payees. The fact remains that this taxpayer has not tendered any details of the actual nature of expenditure. We therefore find no reason to disagree with the lower authorities’ conclusion quoting assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. Coupled with this, the fact also