RADHABARI TEA CO. (P) LTD,BADULIPAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income & Also The Issue Of Timely Deposit Of An Amount

57,24,972/- on account of Labour & Staff Bonus. In this case, while processing u/s 143(1), the Ld. AO, CPC disallowed these items as in- admissible considering the provisions of section

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27/09/2021, I.T.A. No. 283/GTY/2024 Pawan Communications Private Limited wherein the following addition/disallowance were made with respect to the details furnished in the income tax Return. SI No. Head of Expenses Amount disallowed 01 Repair and maintenance 28,53,299/- 02 Software development charges 3,27,738/- 03 Loss on sale

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

Section 80IA Return of of the Act? income was filed 2017- 25,98,02,835 4,34,49,829 Yes 21,63,53,010 153A 13/02/2021 18 2018- 35,57,91,069 35,44,33,862 Yes 13,57,210 153A 13/02/2021 19 2019- 1,03,35,25,768 33,92,20,310 Yes 69,43,05,460 153A 13/02/2021

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

Section 80IA Return of of the Act? income was filed 2017- 25,98,02,835 4,34,49,829 Yes 21,63,53,010 153A 13/02/2021 18 2018- 35,57,91,069 35,44,33,862 Yes 13,57,210 153A 13/02/2021 19 2019- 1,03,35,25,768 33,92,20,310 Yes 69,43,05,460 153A 13/02/2021

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

Section 80IA Return of of the Act? income was filed 2017- 25,98,02,835 4,34,49,829 Yes 21,63,53,010 153A 13/02/2021 18 2018- 35,57,91,069 35,44,33,862 Yes 13,57,210 153A 13/02/2021 19 2019- 1,03,35,25,768 33,92,20,310 Yes 69,43,05,460 153A 13/02/2021

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

Section 80IA Return of of the Act? income was filed 2017- 25,98,02,835 4,34,49,829 Yes 21,63,53,010 153A 13/02/2021 18 2018- 35,57,91,069 35,44,33,862 Yes 13,57,210 153A 13/02/2021 19 2019- 1,03,35,25,768 33,92,20,310 Yes 69,43,05,460 153A 13/02/2021

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

Section 80IA Return of of the Act? income was filed 2017- 25,98,02,835 4,34,49,829 Yes 21,63,53,010 153A 13/02/2021 18 2018- 35,57,91,069 35,44,33,862 Yes 13,57,210 153A 13/02/2021 19 2019- 1,03,35,25,768 33,92,20,310 Yes 69,43,05,460 153A 13/02/2021

GWASINLO KATH RENGMA,DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

57,400/- in his current account (A/c No. 19670200000593) maintained with the Federal Bank Ltd. Made cash deposits (including through bearer cheque) amounting to Rs. 85,50,000/- in his current account (A/c No.201000748299) maintained with Indus Ind Bank Ltd. 3. Further, the assessee made cash withdrawals (including through bearer cheque) amounting to Rs. 35,00,000/- from his current

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

57,452/- made to Smt. Rekhila Tynsong and Shri Bhison Dorkhrat, was chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from payments made and accordingly the AO was not justified in disallowing the payments made

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

57,452/- made to Smt. Rekhila Tynsong and Shri Bhison Dorkhrat, was chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from payments made and accordingly the AO was not justified in disallowing the payments made

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

57,452/- made to Smt. Rekhila Tynsong and Shri Bhison Dorkhrat, was chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from payments made and accordingly the AO was not justified in disallowing the payments made

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

57,452/- made to Smt. Rekhila Tynsong and Shri Bhison Dorkhrat, was chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source from payments made and accordingly the AO was not justified in disallowing the payments made

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. ARUNACHAL PRADESH POLICE WELFARE SOCIETY, PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PAPUMPARE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where After A Detailed Finding The Assessee Could Succeed. The Said Finding Deserves To Be Extracted:

57,480/-. The reason for raising the demand was mentioned in the order at Page 18 which is on account of incorrect claim u/s 143(1)(a)(ii). The error description states as follows. In Schedule Part A General-"Details of registration or approval under Income Tax Act details of Section 12AB

ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE CO OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED,NAHARLAGUN vs. ACIT / DCIT, CIR 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes only

Disallowed Depreciation Expenses Net Profit After Value of Total Allowable\nnt Year Considering the per Profit & Expenses allowed u/s Considering all Rural Advances Provision\nprovision debited Loss Account as las per Income Tax Act, 1961 Act, 1961\n/credited in P&L\nA/c\nadjustments\nTotal Income\nAllowable\nProvision\n@7.5% of 10% of Rural\nANNEXURE A\nNet Taxable\n@Income\n2006