ITAT Guwahati Bench
1,674 judgments
JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
JAGJEET SINGH & SONS,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HONʼBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)
ASSAM VALLEY FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,GUWAHATI vs D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
KIVITO SEMA,DIMAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HONʼBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)
MIZORAM RURAL BANK,AIZAWL vs ACIT, CIRCLE SHILLONG
the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal:
ERNEST MAWRIE,SHILLONG vs ITO W-1 SHILLONG, SHILLONG
us, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned orders were based on incorrect assumptions of fact since the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead on the presumption that the assessee should have conclusively proven that he was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act. It has been averred that documentary evidence presented for supporting the claim under Section 10(26) of the Act was not considered at all.
ERNEST MAWRIE,SHILLONG vs ITO W-1 SHILLONG, SHILLONG
us, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned orders were based on incorrect assumptions of fact since the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead on the presumption that the assessee should have conclusively proven that he was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act. It has been averred that documentary evidence presented for supporting the claim under Section 10(26) of the Act was not considered at all. 2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH LIMITED,ITANAGAR vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE TEZPUR, TEZPUR
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
PURBANCHAL SHREE AYAPPA SEVA SAMITI,GUWAHATI vs ITO WARD 2(2), GUWAHATI
or at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, the Ld. AR prayed for one more chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(E). He stated that due to oversight on the part of the authorised representative handling that case, the matter could not be attended to. The Ld. AR mentioned about the charitable activities carried on by the assessee trust. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(E) but also fairly stated that he would have no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back to
SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA
the Ld. Assessing Officer, nor any return of income was filed. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.1,15,71,000/- under Section 69A & 69C of the Act.
SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA
the Ld. Assessing Officer, nor any return of income was filed. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.1,15,71,000/- under Section 69A & 69C of the Act. 2.1 It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not succeed as he did not make any presentation with respect to opportunities given for hearing.
ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs ITO, WARD-1, TINSUKIA
the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.
ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (ASSAM) PRIVATE LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs ITO, WARD - 1, TINSUKIA
the Ld. Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have proceeded to confirm the action of the Ld. AO.
SUNITA CHOUDHURY,MAKUM ROAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA
the Ld. CIT(A) largely on account of the fact that even at that stage the assessee did not respond to the notices issued from his office.
GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ASSAM
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ASSAM
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
SHRI PARINDRA REANG,AMARPUR vs ITO, WARD- UDAIPUR, AGARTALA
the Ld CIT (A) who disposed off the case on 23-02-2024 as per the Portal as response was filled against the Notice issued by his honour and disposed off the Appeal, partially allowing the Appeal filed.
DEVENDER KUMAR PRASHAR,DELHI vs ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU
the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee could not succeed on the basis of the following findings: “6.1.6 The contention of appellant has been gone through. It is again reiterated at the cost of repetition that the action in the instant case against which appeal is file has been taken u/s.143(1) which prescribes limited adjustment on the basis of details filled in by the assessee in the return of income. The impugned amount contended by the appellant is computed on the basis of amount mentioned by
SRI ANUJIT DAS,AMARPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI
the ITAT through the following grounds:
SUMITRA DEVI JHURIA,GUWAHATI vs ITO-2(1) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
