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

68,772/- but AO after allowing 50% reduction on account of possibility of payments below the statutory limit for deducting TDS, adopted Rs.85,78,34,386/ -liable for disallowance of 30% u/s 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

ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2010-11 dated 27.08.2018, I.T.A. No.: 358/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Accrecent Way Marketing Private Limited. which has been passed against the assessment order passed by the u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.03.2013. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

RESHMI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

KARAN JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

KARISHMA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

251 (Delhi)[13-07-2023], DCIT vs. Jhansi Development Authority [2024] 165 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2024] [08-07-2024]. The ld. AR therefore prayed that in view of the ratio laid down of the above decisions, the approval granted u/s 153D of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are invalid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

68,760 ….do…. 11 ….do... …do…. 11- 21,25,81,959 ….do…. 12 ….do... …do…. 12- 33,70,10,742 ….do…. 13 ….do... …do…. 13- 27,25,50,393 ….do…. 14 ….do... …do…. 14- 20,70,87,907 ….do…. 15 Subhajit Paul AZNPP5539K 08- 1

LAXMI NARAYAN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

C” (at Pages 62 to 68). (b) Bansal Strips (P.) Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T. (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Delhi) "Annexure - D" (at Pages 69 to 83). Further reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) which was affirmed

SANDEEP JALAN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

68 of the Act. Further, a sum of Rs. 48,200/- (being 2% of Rs. 24,10,000/-) was added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure on account of charges paid to earn accommodation entry and an amount of Rs. 1,16,400/- was also added u/s 69 of the Act. In the assessment order, the AO initiated penalty proceedings

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

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

251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act, that there is no reason as to why the appellate commissioner cannot Page 3 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. modify the assessment order or admit an additional ground even if not raised before the Income Tax Officer. According to the Apex Court, no exception could

JOSEPH SYNGKLI,NONGPOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

251 of the IT Act, 1961 as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Income as per Return of Income Rs. 10,88,000/- 2. Addition as per appellate order under Section 250 of Rs. 68,00,000/- CIT(A) NFAC Time Deposit u/s 68 of the Act Tax to be Charged as special Rate u/s 115BBE

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,,DIBRUGARH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH.

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined

OIL INDIA LTD.,DIBRUGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

251 r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short as ‘the Act’; respectively. Heard Shri Sanjay Sarma, Senior Standing Counsel, Shri H.B. Mahanta, Principal CIT,Dibrugarh and Mrs. Rinnee Sherpa, ACIT present (incumbent Assessing Officer) representing the department and S/Shri Gaurav Jain and Deepesh Jain appearing for the assessee. 2. It transpires at the outset from a combined