ITAT Guwahati Bench
1,674 judgments
TORSA MACHINES LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
him.
DEEPAK KUMAR SAHA,BARPETA vs ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HONʼBLE (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
FUNG PENG NAMCHOOM,CHOWKHAM vs ITO, WARD - 1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HONʼBLE (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI
the earned CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal.
SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI
the earned CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal.
RAMEN DEKA,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-2 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
him.
NEW TECH STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
the Hon'ble Bench against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the provisions of section 253(3), the appeal was required to be filed on or before 11th March, 2025. However, the appeal could only be filed on 4rd June, 2025, resulting in a delay of 85 days. The reasons for the delay are detailed below: 1. That due to serious health condition, the appellant was unable to continue the required legal proceedings as he was a prolonged s
D P SCHOOL SOCIETY,NAGALAND vs ASSESSING OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD TWO(THREE)
the First Appellate Authority. Before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee gave the reasons for said delay as under: “Due to certain unavoidable circumstances which were beyond hid control, the assessee was prevented from filing an appeal within due course of time”
MOHAMMED ASAD,RATLAM vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the explanation submitted did not discharge the burden of proof for the purposes of section 69A of the Act.
THAN KHUPA HMAR,CHAMPHAI vs DDIT,ACIT SILCHAR, SILCHAR
the Ld. CIT(A), where he could not succeed mainly on account of the fact that the notices issued for hearing in the matter did not elicit any response and hence the appeal was disposed of in an exparte manner.
DINGLUAIA HLAWNMUAL,DAWRPUI WEST vs ITO-W 1 SILCHAR,DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR
the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not avail of several opportunities to represent before the first appellate authority. Thereafter, for both the years, exparte orders have been passed.
DINGLUAIA HLAWNMUAL,DAWRPUI WEST vs ITO W-1 SILCHAR,DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR
the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not avail of several opportunities to represent before the first appellate authority. Thereafter, for both the years, exparte orders have been passed.
MAKHANLAL GATTANI,JORHAT vs ITO, WARD-1, JORHAT, JORHAT
the date of processing u/s.143(1) by the CPC. The claim of deduction has been denied only on technical grounds and not on the merits of the claim.
PAWAN CASTINGS MEGHALAYA PRIVATE LIMITED,MEGHALAYA vs DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI ASSAM
the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the case on merit on the basis of facts already on record and thereafter passed an adverse order against the assessee. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:
RAHA T AMIT,ITANAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR
or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern
DCIT, KOLKATA vs NAZARETH HOSPITAL SOCIETY, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)
RI-BHOI ISPAT & ROLLING MILLS,BYRNIHAT vs ITO, WARD- BYRNIHAT, BYRNIHAT
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
AMOX COMMUNICATION & CABLE PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs ACIT CIR-3 GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
the Ld. CIT(A) where he could not succeed mainly because of finding in the impugned order as under:
ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(4), SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs THE LITTLE STAR TRUST, DIGBOI
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
