DURA ROOF (P) LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1CPC, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

deduction claimed u/s. 80IC of the Act, for not furnishing audit report in Form 10CCB within the prescribed time limit. 4. From the perusal of the petition for condonation of delay

S.B. BHATTACHARJEE MEMORIAL TRUST FOR CHILDREN EDUCATION ,DIGBOI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone any delay in filing of Form 10B as per the aforesaid Circular No. 2 of 2020 dated 03/01/2020. Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the appellant’s submissions. Further, keeping in view the above mentioned legal provisions as per Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear

MAYURPLY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD.,HOOGHLY, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

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

condone the delay by admitting the appeals for adjudication. We shall first take up IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. IT(SS)A 1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11 03. First, we would take up ITA(SS)A No.1/GTY/2024 for A.Y. 2010-11. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised legal issue challenging the jurisdiction

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 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

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

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 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

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

SAIKIA AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NOTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay of the assessee in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Coming to the appeals, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the AO had passed an order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the fact that AO had bothered

SAIKIA AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NOTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay of the assessee in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Coming to the appeals, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the AO had passed an order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the fact that AO had bothered

UTTAM KUMAR CHETIA,NATUN NIRMALI GAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), DIBRUGARH

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

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

deduction. (v) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department NFAC, is erroneously in law as well as in facts in directing to take whole of Rs. 45,37,147.00 as commission income of the Appellant without considering the order pronounced

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

condone the impugned delay attributable to various procedural formalities and compilation of records. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's first substantive grievance reads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting depreciation disallowance of ₹84,86,809/- made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

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

condone the impugned eight days’ delay in filing of latter appeal ITA No.307/Gau/2018. 3. Coming to the merits of the former issue, we notice that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action denying sec. 80IE deduction

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

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

condone the impugned eight days’ delay in filing of latter appeal ITA No.307/Gau/2018. 3. Coming to the merits of the former issue, we notice that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action denying sec. 80IE deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSAM COOERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case

MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

deduction under Chapter IV/VIA may be allowed. However, in the instant case the assessee has failed bring forth any such communication or any order condoning such delay

SHRI ASHISH KUMAR DEY,DHARMANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 120/Gty/2011 Block Year: 01/04/1989 To 08/12/1999 Shri Subhash Chandra Dey Assistant Commissioner Of Office-Tilla Vs Income Tax, Circle-Silchar Dharmanagar -799250 Tripura [Pan: Acrpd1916F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called to any partner not being a working partner: Provided that undisclosed income of the firm so determined shall not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the partners, whether on allocation or on account of enhancement; (c) assessment under Section 143 includes determination of income under