← All Phrases

“Section 10(26)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(26)113 judgments

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 191/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

accept the submissions of the assessee for the following reasons: (a) Mere submission of certificate does not prove that all the condition of section 10(26) are satisfied. (b) GST registration only indicates that he registered his business concern with GST. It does not pursue prove the sources & nature ... profession carried on by him as per the provision of the Act and thereafter he may make claim for exemption as per section 10(26) of the Act if he is satisfied the conditions as per the IT Act, but the entire receipts/deposits in bank account is not qualify

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 190/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

accept the submissions of the assessee for the following reasons: (a) Mere submission of certificate does not prove that all the condition of section 10(26) are satisfied. (b) GST registration only indicates that he registered his business concern with GST. It does not pursue prove the sources & nature ... profession carried on by him as per the provision of the Act and thereafter he may make claim for exemption as per section 10(26) of the Act if he is satisfied the conditions as per the IT Act, but the entire receipts/deposits in bank account is not qualify

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Scheduled Tribe Mizo (Lushal) Tribe, a permanent resident of Mizoram, a specified area under the Income Tax Act. In accordance with Section 10(26) of the Act, my income is exempt from tax. Due to this specific legal provision applicable to my community and location, I held a genuine ... sustainable for tax demand. Both the authorities have not allowed the exemption to the assessee and the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(26) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that notice issued by the AO were not received by the assessee the notice might have

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR , SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Scheduled Tribe Mizo (Lushal) Tribe, a permanent resident of Mizoram, a specified area under the Income Tax Act. In accordance with Section 10(26) of the Act, my income is exempt from tax. Due to this specific legal provision applicable to my community and location, I held a genuine ... sustainable for tax demand. Both the authorities have not allowed the exemption to the assessee and the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(26) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that notice issued by the AO were not received by the assessee the notice might have

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Scheduled Tribe Mizo (Lushal) Tribe, a permanent resident of Mizoram, a specified area under the Income Tax Act. In accordance with Section 10(26) of the Act, my income is exempt from tax. Due to this specific legal provision applicable to my community and location, I held a genuine ... sustainable for tax demand. Both the authorities have not allowed the exemption to the assessee and the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(26) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that notice issued by the AO were not received by the assessee the notice might have

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

Section 10(26)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Scheduled Tribe Mizo (Lushal) Tribe, a permanent resident of Mizoram, a specified area under the Income Tax Act. In accordance with Section 10(26) of the Act, my income is exempt from tax. Due to this specific legal provision applicable to my community and location, I held a genuine ... sustainable for tax demand. Both the authorities have not allowed the exemption to the assessee and the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(26) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that notice issued by the AO were not received by the assessee the notice might have

AKHETO YEPTHOMI,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 246/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

assessee conceded that no books of accounts and details have been maintained, since, the income is exempt as per section 10(26) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty penalty of Rs. 1,39,338/- against the above orders that the addition u/s 69A of the Act and penalty u/s 271B

AKHETO YEPTHOMI,DIMAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 245/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

assessee conceded that no books of accounts and details have been maintained, since, the income is exempt as per section 10(26) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty penalty of Rs. 1,39,338/- against the above orders that the addition u/s 69A of the Act and penalty u/s 271B

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

ITA 275/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

response to the notice issued and also filed other details. It was stated before the Ld. AO that the income was exempt under section 10(26) of the Act, but the explanation was not accepted by the AO who assessed the total income of the assessee at rupees ... requested that the same may be upheld. It was informed to the Ld. DR that the assessee was claiming exemption under section 10(26) and the assessment was made because the documents filed were not in English translation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay was not condoned

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

ITA 274/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 4Section 44ASection 69A

response to the notice issued and also filed other details. It was stated before the Ld. AO that the income was exempt under section 10(26) of the Act, but the explanation was not accepted by the AO who assessed the total income of the assessee at rupees ... requested that the same may be upheld. It was informed to the Ld. DR that the assessee was claiming exemption under section 10(26) and the assessment was made because the documents filed were not in English translation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay was not condoned

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

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

ITA 242/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 250Section 69A

assessee could not get the required benefit on account of non-representation though she claims that her income is exempted under section 10(26) of the Act even though partial relief was allowed to her. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well

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

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

ITA 241/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 149Section 250Section 69A

assessee could not get the required benefit on account of non-representation though she claims that her income is exempted under section 10(26) of the Act even though partial relief was allowed to her. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well

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

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

ITA 156/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee personally. It is stated that the assessee is from the Scheduled Tribe of Nagaland and is exempt from Income Tax as per section 10(26) of the Act. The assessee is an agriculturist having paddy field and timber plantation in Longsa village under Mokokchung district. As regards the show ... examined the contentions of the appellant and aforesaid documents enclosed by the assessee and in view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 10(26) of the Act, the income of the appellant was not liable for taxation and, therefore, the addition made by the Ld. AO was deleted

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 277/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Pandey
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 250

total income of the assessee. The ld. AO has denied the benefit of section 10(26) of the Act also. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the 3. ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23.06.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved ... appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal, section 10(26) of the Act also involved in the matter, it is our considered opinion that, the case of the assessee should be remanded

SUMITRA SURENDRA GADODIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(3)(4), BANDRA, MUMBAI

ITA 4519/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 10(26)Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 68

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nAND\nMS

TSERING PHUNCHOK,LEH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous

ITA 205/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Adv
Section 10(26)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI‘ D’ BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND MANMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI‘ D’ BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE S/SHRIAND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND MANMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER

MANTO TINGKHAHAM,NAMSANGMUKH vs. OFFICE OF THE ITO, DIGBOI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

succeed on the I.T.A. No. 161/GTY/2025 Manto Tingkhaham basis of the following findings: “6.8 In regards to fulfilling the third conditions of section 10(26), it has been observed that the appellant has asserted that his income from all sources has accrued and arisen within Arunachal Pradesh, so his income ... does not constitute part of the total income. As per section 10(26) of the Act, income tax exemption is only available when income arises in specified areas under sixth Schedule. It’s a fact that the appellant belongs to the scheduled tribal community in Arunachal Pradesh, but that doesn

MANDAKINI DKHAR,LUMSHNONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where also she could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied on the findings of the Ld. AO. It is also seen from para 18 at page 11 of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) was considerably persuaded by the fact that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for eliciting response from the assessee, were not adequately responded to. It is also seen from the impugned order that attempts to verify the nature and extent of business from the VAT returns pertaining to the state of Megha

Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

order that while the assessee maintained that the assessee I.T.A. No. 19/GTY/2024 Mandakini Dkhar was beyond taxation considering the provision of section 10(26) of the Act. The Ld. AO had persistently enquired about the nature and source of such cash deposits, with evidence. Needless ... that the CIT(A) was wrong in dismissing the appeal of appellant mere on his surmise and conjecture without considering the provisions of section 10(26) and addition of deposit made as unexplained Money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 That the CIT(A) was wrong

Showing 1–20 of 113 · Page 1 of 6