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 return u/s 234E of the Act, while processing the statements furnished by the assessee u/s 200A of the Act. At the outset itself, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India

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 return u/s 234E of the Act, while processing the statements furnished by the assessee u/s 200A of the Act. At the outset itself, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India

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 return u/s 234E of the Act, while processing the statements furnished by the assessee u/s 200A of the Act. At the outset itself, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India

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 return u/s 234E of the Act, while processing the statements furnished by the assessee u/s 200A of the Act. At the outset itself, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatehraj Singhvi v. Union of India

JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

88,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh eighty eight thousand only) as Income is exempted under Section 10 (26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, I admit that there were no compliances from me, Sir, this is due that I am unaware of the procedure about filing income tax return or how to upload

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

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 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 LTD.,TRIPURA 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

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

88,75,684/- made in the course of assessment. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under:- ITA No.232/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO Wd-4(2), Guwa Vs. M/s Kishlay Foods Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 “8. Points for determination, the reasons for determination and the decision on the points for determination under Section

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

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

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