ITAT Guwahati Judgments — December 2025

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

ITA 308/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

ITA 274/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee consistently followed the Percentage of Completion method and had offered income for taxation in subsequent years. Restoring the AO's addition would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had incorrectly applied accounting standards and ignored the assessee's established accounting policy.

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

ITA 310/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.

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

ITA 306/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.

ASSAM VALLEY FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,GUWAHATI vs D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI

ITA 75/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction as the relevant provisions of Section 151A were notified on the same day the order was framed. Furthermore, the reopening of assessment was deemed bad in law due to non-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction, as the assessee had no dealings with the brokers whose statements were relied upon by the AO. The Tribunal quashed the assessment and the reopening.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs SRKM STEEL (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

ITA 168/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that once the assessee provides cogent evidence of repaying the loans in subsequent assessment years, an addition under Section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that such repayment effectively establishes the genuineness of the transactions, identity of the lenders, and their creditworthiness, citing precedents from various High Courts.

BELONG TRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGAHR

ITA 254/GTY/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer had merely reproduced information from the Investigation Wing without recording independent reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. This 'borrowed satisfaction' without proper application of mind rendered the reopening under Section 147/148 and the subsequent assessment invalid.

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

ITA 309/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.

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

ITA 307/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.

YASWI COMMERCIAL,GUWAHATI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 129/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's denial of a mandatory personal hearing, despite the assessee's request, violated Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. It concluded that the addition under Section 69C was based on suspicion and that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment with proper opportunity granted to the assessee.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 140/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The corporate guarantee fee was restricted to 0.5% based on a coordinate bench ruling, and excise duty exemption was treated as a capital receipt not includible for MAT computation.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

ITA 156/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without obtaining a remand report, which is a contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) also failed to properly examine the source and quantum of income or its correlation to the bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence.

ANUP DAS, GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 271/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, allow further submissions following Rule 46A, and involve the AO if necessary, ensuring a speaking order is passed.

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

ITA 242/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

Citing lack of proper representation and ex-parte assessments at lower levels, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years. It remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, ensuring the assessee a full opportunity to present her case and substantiate her claim for exemption under section 10(26).

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

ITA 241/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Remanded

Citing lack of proper representation and ex-parte assessments at lower levels, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years. It remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, ensuring the assessee a full opportunity to present her case and substantiate her claim for exemption under section 10(26).

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs ITO W-2, SHILLONG

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine based on procedural delays and lack of English translations, thereby denying the assessee a proper hearing on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and compliance with Rule 46A. The findings for AY 2016-17 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2022-23 as the facts were identical.

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs ITO W-2, SHILLONG

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine based on procedural delays and lack of English translations, thereby denying the assessee a proper hearing on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and compliance with Rule 46A. The findings for AY 2016-17 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2022-23 as the facts were identical.

AFSANA BEGUM,GUWAHATI vs ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 113/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the assessee's contention regarding the year of loan receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh examination of facts and to determine the correct assessment year in which the liability for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act arose.

GREEN LAND SOCIETY ( N.G.O),DHUBRI vs WARD-2(3) XEMPT , GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

ITA 276/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

Considering the lack of proper compliance by the assessee's consultant before both the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of both lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard and submit explanations, with a directive not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

DILING TATAK,PAPUM PARE vs ITO, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

ITA 277/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Dec 2025AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was under Section 144 and involved Section 10(26) of the Act. Considering the CIT(A)'s dismissal based on filing delay, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s order and the original assessment order, remanding the case to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

ITA 305/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeals. Observing the assessee's non-representation before the lower authorities, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to respond promptly to future notices.

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

ITA 302/GTY/2025[2015-2016]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, quashing the reassessment proceedings. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the department failed to prove the investment was made by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs INCOME TAX WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

ITA 303/GTY/2025[2016-2017]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, quashing the reassessment proceedings. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the department failed to prove the investment was made by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

ITA 306/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeals. Observing the assessee's non-representation before the lower authorities, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to respond promptly to future notices.

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs ARUNACHAL PRADESH POLICE WELFARE SOCIETY, PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PAPUMPARE

ITA 304/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed4 Dec 2025AY 2021-22Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11, despite the changes in registration provisions.

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 300/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 298/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR vs ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 297/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

ITA 299/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DIMAPUR

ITA 188/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) carefully reviewed the Ld. DR's arguments and the case records. The Tribunal determined that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly applied the legal provisions based on its findings in paragraph 6.2 of the impugned order and had validly granted relief. Consequently, the ITAT decided not to intervene with the CIT(A)'s conclusions.

LAKHESWARI TEA INDUSTRIES,TINSUKIA, ASSAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA, ASSAM

ITA 90/GTY/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021Dismissed

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a request to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA, SHILLONG

ITA 78/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied heavily on the assessee's submissions and a sketchy remand report from the AO, without sufficient verification. The Tribunal noted issues with the reliance on IDS declarations by the assessee's son and self-serving confirmations from CMJ Foundation.

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

ITA 273/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on suspicion and generalized allegations without confronting the assessee with adverse material or allowing cross-examination of third parties. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, which was not adequately dealt with by the lower authorities.

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA ,SHILLONG vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG , SHILLONG

ITA 62/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied heavily on the assessee's submissions and a sketchy remand report from the AO, without sufficient verification. The Tribunal noted issues with the reliance on IDS declarations by the assessee's son and self-serving confirmations from CMJ Foundation.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs SMT. INDU RANI JHA, SHILLONG

ITA 298/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Dec 2025AY 2013-14Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not sufficiently investigated the genuineness of the sources of funds, including gifts and transactions with M/s CMJ Foundation, and the implications of an ongoing CID investigation against the assessee. Noting that IDS benefits do not extend to income from certain illegal activities, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to segregate year-specific deposits, verify the veracity of gifts, examine the genuineness of transactions with CMJ Foundation and Shri CM Jha, and ascertain the status of the CID case against the assessee.