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.

disallowed. 9. Another argument is that the debatable issues could not be subject matter of adjustment u/s 143(1). However, so far as the revenue is concerned, this issue is not debatable for the revenue. The revenue has always maintained a position that the claim is allowable to assessee only when the contribution is deposited as per the mandate

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.

disallowed. 9. Another argument is that the debatable issues could not be subject matter of adjustment u/s 143(1). However, so far as the revenue is concerned, this issue is not debatable for the revenue. The revenue has always maintained a position that the claim is allowable to assessee only when the contribution is deposited as per the mandate

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.

disallowed. 9. Another argument is that the debatable issues could not be subject matter of adjustment u/s 143(1). However, so far as the revenue is concerned, this issue is not debatable for the revenue. The revenue has always maintained a position that the claim is allowable to assessee only when the contribution is deposited as per the mandate

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.

disallowed. 9. Another argument is that the debatable issues could not be subject matter of adjustment u/s 143(1). However, so far as the revenue is concerned, this issue is not debatable for the revenue. The revenue has always maintained a position that the claim is allowable to assessee only when the contribution is deposited as per the mandate

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.

disallowed. 9. Another argument is that the debatable issues could not be subject matter of adjustment u/s 143(1). However, so far as the revenue is concerned, this issue is not debatable for the revenue. The revenue has always maintained a position that the claim is allowable to assessee only when the contribution is deposited as per the mandate

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 expenses of Rs.3,62,37,711/­ as being based on conjectures & surmises. In doing

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]

63,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. As noted earlier, the additions on account of unexplained ‘cash credit’, could not have been made by the AO, unless he first made an addition of undisclosed ‘asset’ valued at Rs. 50 Lakhs or more. So in this case, as there was no addition made by AO 25 I.T.A. No.21/Gau/2021 & CO No.1/Gau/2021

MEGHALAYA ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED, (GPF TRUST),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 shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION 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 shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained 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 shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

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 shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained 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 shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’. Since the year under appeal is AY 2016-17 therefore, the said amendment is applicable and therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act needs to be sustained only to the extent

GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of amortization leasehold lands. We thus decline to interfere”. 30. We, therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions referred hereinabove, are of the view that the amortization of leasehold land and land development charges of Rs.18,73,242/- deserves to be allowed as an expenditure under section

ACIT, CIRCLE - TINSUKIA , TINSUKIA vs. M/S. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD., TINSUKIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of amortization leasehold lands. We thus decline to interfere”. 30. We, therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions referred hereinabove, are of the view that the amortization of leasehold land and land development charges of Rs.18,73,242/- deserves to be allowed as an expenditure under section

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee and the same holds good prior to amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act 2022. Thus, no infirmity is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Revenue’s ground no.4 is dismissed. 48. Ground no. 5 raised

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee and the same holds good prior to amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act 2022. Thus, no infirmity is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Revenue’s ground no.4 is dismissed. 48. Ground no. 5 raised

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee and the same holds good prior to amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act 2022. Thus, no infirmity is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Revenue’s ground no.4 is dismissed. 48. Ground no. 5 raised

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee and the same holds good prior to amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act 2022. Thus, no infirmity is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Revenue’s ground no.4 is dismissed. 48. Ground no. 5 raised

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee and the same holds good prior to amendment made in Section 14A of the Act by Finance Act 2022. Thus, no infirmity is called for in the finding of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Revenue’s ground no.4 is dismissed. 48. Ground no. 5 raised