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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIYANSHU BOIRAGI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. The ld. AR to substantiate his argument, he placed before us various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts on this issue by citing as follows: “CIT vs Meghalaya Steel Limited in Civil Appeal No. 7622/2014 (2016) 132 DTR (SC) 273 & Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order