MEGHALAYA POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, from AY 2015-16 the disallowance may be restricted only to the extent

MEGHALAYA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, from AY 2015-16 the disallowance may be restricted only to the extent

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, from AY 2015-16 the disallowance may be restricted only to the extent

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

disallowance of Rs. 14,82,595/­ made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is liable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section and is not as a result of any incriminating documents found in course of the search which would warrant such disallowance. (ii) Only other addition in the assessment is the sum of Rs. 4,73,20,709 being the bank balance of the said two companies. For Gingest Marketing Ltd it amounts to Rs. 4,52,40

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. PAWAN CEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section and is not as a result of any incriminating documents found in course of the search which would warrant such disallowance. (ii) Only other addition in the assessment is the sum of Rs. 4,73,20,709 being the bank balance of the said two companies. For Gingest Marketing Ltd it amounts to Rs. 4,52,40

PACPL BIPL JV,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF I.T., CPC, BENGALURU (JURISDICTIONAL A.O. - ITO, WARD-3(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Pacpl Bipl Jv Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Jurisdictional A.O. – Ito, 8Th Floor, Unit Ii, Sethi Trust Ward-3(3), Guwahati. Building, G.S. Road, Vs. Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam- 781005. Pan: Aadap 9047 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Uttam Kumar Borthakur, Advocate Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A) For Short Hereafter] Has Erred In Law & In Fact In Not Adjudicating Upon Ground No. 1 Of Appeal Before Him By Holding It To Be General In Nature Though The Determination Of Total Income At Rs. 39846190/- Under Section 143(1), Instead Of Returned Income Of Nil & Seeking Carry Forward Of Current Business Of (-) Rs. 14640/-, Was Contrary To The Relevant Materials, Namely, The Facts & Materials Showing That The Appellant Was Not An Assessee- In- Default Within The Meaning Of First Proviso To Section 201, As Read With Second Proviso To Clause (Ia) Of Sub-Section (A) Of Section 40 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Act For Short Hereafter)

section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act for short hereafter) ii. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) had erred in law and in fact in sustaining the addition or disallowance

TRIDENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

40(a)(ia) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 254/GTY/2024 Trident Infraprojects Private Limited (b) Rs. 16,95,288/- under Section 69C of the Act. Regarding these additions, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted for the sake of background and reference: “4.5 As regards, the ground relating to disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. ANUPAM NIRMAN PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Anupam Nirman Private Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati Vs Limited 1St Floor, Kabita Mansion Rajgarh Link Road Chandmari Guwahati - 781003 [Pan : Aaica 4965 B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,20,77,310/- On Account Estimation Of The Net Profit @ 7% Of Total Turnover For The Year. (Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 49,05,724/- On Account Of Disallowance Towards Interest Expense Against Loan Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 11,26,247/- On

disallowance towards interest expense against loan under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) That on the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSAM COOERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

disallowance has been I.T.A. No. 160/GTY/2025 The Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Limited restricted by the Ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 2,52,30,000/- on account of non-deduction of TDS as per the provisions of section 40

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. THE MEGHALAYA COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, SHILLONG

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

40(a)(ia) and accordingly made disallowance of Rs.25,73,50,316/-. However, I find from the submission of the appellant that certain amounts were not liable for TDS but the same have been considered for disallowances. Further the cases covered by exemption u/s 10(26) and Form No.15G/15H have not been considered since the appellant could not furnish

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts

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

40 A(3) of Rs.47,75,062/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts. 4 For that the learned A.O. is not justified in disallowing expenses u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 1,13,006/-and added back to the total income which were not recorded in the books of accounts