HEMENDRA NATH DEKA,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.5&6/Gau/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Hemendra Nath Deka…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant House No.6, Dolphin Security & Advertising, Kamakhya Temple Road, Kamakhya Gate, Guwahati-781009, Kamrup, Assam. [Pan: Ajupd3564F] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ito, Ward-1(2), Guwahati)…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N. T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 09.12.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole & Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, however, the aforesaid decision would show that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court referred to the provisions of section 43B of the Act to hold that the said section 43B introduced by Finance Act 2003, was curative in nature and was required to be applied retrospectively w.e.f

HEMENDRA NATH DEKA,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.5&6/Gau/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Hemendra Nath Deka…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant House No.6, Dolphin Security & Advertising, Kamakhya Temple Road, Kamakhya Gate, Guwahati-781009, Kamrup, Assam. [Pan: Ajupd3564F] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ito, Ward-1(2), Guwahati)…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N. T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 09.12.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole & Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, however, the aforesaid decision would show that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court referred to the provisions of section 43B of the Act to hold that the said section 43B introduced by Finance Act 2003, was curative in nature and was required to be applied retrospectively w.e.f

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, however, the aforesaid decision would show that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court referred to the provisions of section 43B of the Act to hold that the said section 43B introduced by Finance Act 2003, was curative in nature and was required to be applied retrospectively w.e.f

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, however, the aforesaid decision would show that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court referred to the provisions of section 43B of the Act to hold that the said section 43B introduced by Finance Act 2003, was curative in nature and was required to be applied retrospectively w.e.f

M/S. ADD CONSTRUCTION,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, however, the aforesaid decision would show that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court referred to the provisions of section 43B of the Act to hold that the said section 43B introduced by Finance Act 2003, was curative in nature and was required to be applied retrospectively w.e.f

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

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

171,79,78,604/-, ₹369,60,15,777, ₹1174,87,15,092/-, ₹1,149,57,71,017/-, ₹1572,02,31,395/-, ₹1626,49,31,357/- and 186,677,04,350/-; assessment year-wise respectively. 3. Learned representative(s) inform us very fairly that the Revenue’s four appeal(s) in assessment year(s) 2003-04 to 2006-07 arise against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

171/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at North Lakhimpur. (iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/ disallowance of Rs. 1,37,24,383/- toward assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

171/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at North Lakhimpur. (iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/ disallowance of Rs. 1,37,24,383/- toward assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

171/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at North Lakhimpur. (iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/ disallowance of Rs. 1,37,24,383/- toward assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

171/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at North Lakhimpur. (iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/ disallowance of Rs. 1,37,24,383/- toward assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ASSAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

171/- toward assessee’s claim for deduction 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its industrial unit located at North Lakhimpur. (iv) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law in deleting the addition/ disallowance of Rs. 1,37,24,383/- toward assessee

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowance of bogus Long Term Capital Gain is available with department, when the entry operator and the directors of shell companies themselves have accepted under Oath that they are involved in providing accommodation entries during various departmental investigations which is incriminating in itself. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred