ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

197 Taxman 337] (Constitution bench of 5 Supreme Court Judges). By express mention of ‘Assets’ and definition given to it specifically, it is implied that the Parliament silently excluded the items of ‘revenue’, ‘expenditure’ & ‘liabilities’ from its jurisdictional fact for invoking/assumption/usurpation of jurisdiction u/s. 153C/153A of the Act for the seventh to tenth assessment year preceding the searched assessment year

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

197], it was held: ".....It appears that the competent authority has wrongly quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact, the order of discharge has to be read having been passed under Section 22 of the Army Act. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed

M/S. JACK N JILL,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 10(26) of the Act, hence, we could not have legally deducted ITDS therefrom. In the circumstances, we cannot be treated as 'assessee-in-default' on account of non-deduction of tax at source on Rent of Rs.39,53,040/- paid by us to the aforesaid persons during the financial year 2015- 2016. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed