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

9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the findings of both the authorities took us through section 153A, 147 and 148 of the Income T\ax Act. He contended that basically construction/ interpretation of sections 147 /148 is not in much dispute under the present question, but it is very much necessary to explain the scope of section

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

v. ITA No. 114/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2017-18: “1 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making disallowance of Capital Expenditure of Rs. 17,49,055/- and charging the same to taxable income even when no expenditure was claimed. 2 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing Depreciation of Rs. 1,74,905/- after rejecting

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

ASSAM GAS COMPANY LIMITED,DULIAJAN vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1/DBR, DIBRUGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

v. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 273 (Del) emphasized the importance of ensuring that genuine TDS credits are not denied due to technical mismatches. 4.3.6 Given the above, it is reasonable to allow the appellant's claim for TDS credit, subject to verification. The AO is directed to verify the details provided by the appellant with the TRACES Portal records

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

1) CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries: SLP (C) 1379/2014 (SC) (2) CIT v. Reaiest Builders and Services: 307 ITR 202 (SC) (3) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) (4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital

M/S. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

1) CIT v. Rajasthan Breweries: SLP (C) 1379/2014 (SC) (2) CIT v. Reaiest Builders and Services: 307 ITR 202 (SC) (3) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) (4) CIT v. Excel Industries: 358 ITR 295 (SC) (5) CIT V. Daimia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 281 ITR 346 (Del.) (6) DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital

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

9. Ground no. 1 relates to disallowance of excess commission paid u/s. 40(b)(v) of the Act. The ld. AO noted that the profit sharing ratio of the three partners is 38:1:1 but commission to the first partner was allowed @ 89.09%, which was excess by 51.08%. 10. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with the issue observing