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

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

VISHASH AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.39/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/O Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [Pan: Aghpa7072R] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 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 Issue Involved In 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 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

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 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

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 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

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 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

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 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

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 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to mention here that under section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act, the following amount is allowable as deduction if paid by the assessee before due date

JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Prakash Das Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati Kumud Enclave, Nawaram Vs. Kakati Path, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008. Pan: Ajipd 5193 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2020 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-2 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). That Neither The Learned Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,43,73,603/- On Account Of Proportionate Direct Expenses & Adding The Same In The Closing Stock Of The Appellant Nor The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Aforesaid Disallowance/Addition.

disallowance shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub- section (3) and this sub-section where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

7) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the additions/ disallowances made u/s 153A of the IT Act 1961 was not based on any incriminating documents / material/ evidences found in the search which and hence the additions/ disallowance made were beyond the scope of the said section

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

7) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the additions/ disallowances made u/s 153A of the IT Act 1961 was not based on any incriminating documents / material/ evidences found in the search which and hence the additions/ disallowance made were beyond the scope of the said section

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

7) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the additions/ disallowances made u/s 153A of the IT Act 1961 was not based on any incriminating documents / material/ evidences found in the search which and hence the additions/ disallowance made were beyond the scope of the said section

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

disallowed only if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed its return of income on 07.02 2022 well within the due date/extended due date specified u/s 139(1). 7

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

disallowed only if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed its return of income on 07.02 2022 well within the due date/extended due date specified u/s 139(1). 7

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

disallowed only if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. However, the appellant filed its return of income on 07.02 2022 well within the due date/extended due date specified u/s 139(1). 7

ASSAM GAS COMPANY LIMITED,DULIAJAN vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1/DBR, DIBRUGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the TDS credit due to mismatches between the details filed by the appellant and the information available in the system. It is contended that the onus is on the appellant to ensure that all claims are fully reconciled and supported by valid evidence at the time of filing the return. 4.3.4 Upon analysis, it is evident that the appellant

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 under section 14A of the Act at Rs.31,038/-. Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.54,42,24,737/- and income computed under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.3,23,17,984/- (after giving set off of the MAT credit of Rs.18,49,81,989/-). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

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 under section 14A of the Act at Rs.31,038/-. Ld. Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.54,42,24,737/- and income computed under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.3,23,17,984/- (after giving set off of the MAT credit of Rs.18,49,81,989/-). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before