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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

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

deducted in respect of the Contract Revenue received by the Assessee, the Assessee could not be treated Page 47 of 114 I.T.A. No.: 43/GTY/2022 I.T.A. No.: 2/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. Nos.: 37, 38 & 39/GTY/2022 AYs: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited. as a “Works Contractor”. Detailed explanations in this regard were filed

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

147 is bad in law as it is a search and seizure case. Firstly, it is submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the registered office of the assessee company at Knowledge Hub, DN 23, 2nd floor, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091 on 20.09.2019 and pursuant to the said search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

147 is bad in law as it is a search and seizure case. Firstly, it is submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the registered office of the assessee company at Knowledge Hub, DN 23, 2nd floor, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091 on 20.09.2019 and pursuant to the said search

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]

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 shall be taken by the assessing officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year:] 11. From the plain reading of the said proviso it transpire that the provisions of sec 11 and 12 shall apply

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 shall be taken by the assessing officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year:] 11. From the plain reading of the said proviso it transpire that the provisions of sec 11 and 12 shall apply

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 shall be taken by the assessing officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year:] 11. From the plain reading of the said proviso it transpire that the provisions of sec 11 and 12 shall apply

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION) WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 shall be taken by the assessing officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year:] 11. From the plain reading of the said proviso it transpire that the provisions of sec 11 and 12 shall apply

STATE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 shall be taken by the assessing officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year:] 11. From the plain reading of the said proviso it transpire that the provisions of sec 11 and 12 shall apply

STAE HEALTH SOCIETY ASSAM,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

147 shall be taken by the assessing officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year:] 11. From the plain reading of the said proviso it transpire that the provisions of sec 11 and 12 shall apply

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share capital) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of dying of cloth on job-work basis - It filed return declaring certain taxable income Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied a list of paper companies which

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Share capital) - Assessment year 2010-11 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of dying of cloth on job-work basis - It filed return declaring certain taxable income Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under section 143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied a list of paper companies which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

u/s. 68 of the Act to explain the alleged cash credits to the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer and there being no further inquiry conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer means that the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

u/s. 68 of the Act to explain the alleged cash credits to the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer and there being no further inquiry conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer means that the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer did not make any addition under section