AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

deduction then it is to be excluded from the WIP also. This expense be carried out after going through the detailed explanation of the assessee and ledger account, we are of the view that this issue be remitted to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 24. In the result, ITA Nos. 219/GAU/2019 is allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Income Rs. 3,29,070/- 6. Ld. AO noted, “it is ascertained that during the financial year 2015-16 had made accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gains

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

capital in a year. Valid notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued. Various details were called for by the ld. AO, which the assessee has filed. Income assessed at Rs.4,84,36,311/- after making following disallowances :- Returned Income : Rs.1,21,98,600 ADD: Disallowance u/s 40(b)(v) [paras 3] Rs. 66,43,474 Disallowance

PLASCOM INDUSTRIES LLP,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

capital account. Therefore, the AO computed the interest expenses @ 12% at Rs. 1,86,08,294/- which comes to Rs. 22,32,995/- and this amount was treated as income was proposed to be disallowed as per section 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(8) of the Act and show cause notice was issued to the assessee against the show cause notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

deduction was allowed in one year or partly in one year and partly in the next, since the assessee is a company and rate of tax is uniform. The gain to one and the loss to the other is illusory since what is deferred in one year, would have to bedischarged in the next. In that sense, nobody

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Capital Receipt, and therefore, not chargeable to tax. 4. Without prejudice to the grounds taken here-in-above, the computation of total income made vide the impugned Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 17,48,190/-, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave

DEEPA JHUNJHUNWALA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Capital Receipt, and therefore, not chargeable to tax. 4. Without prejudice to the grounds taken here-in-above, the computation of total income made vide the impugned Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 17,48,190/-, is not in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves leave

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed