SHIWAJI PD. JAISWAL,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be uphold. 7. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and order of authorities below. We noted that the return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 30.07.2019, where there is a disallowance

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

disallowing 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

condoned. It was submitted that the filing of the audit report was directory and not mandatory in nature and the delay occurred due to a technical default. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that the same may be confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. In this case, the Ld.AO made several additions out of which the addition of Rs. 21,56,00,000/- on account of alleged penal interest survives for adjudication before the ITAT. The Revenue is aggrieved that the Ld. CIT(A) has afforded relief to the assessee on this

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

SHRI PRADIP KUMAR TIBREWAL,TEZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

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

Bench: Shri A.T, Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

disallowance of Rs. 92,500/- in Travelling & Conveyance expenses on arbitrary and baseless grounds. 4. That any other ground/s, if found worth submitting, shall be submitted at time of the hearing. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of 3. issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasions. The learned Departmental Representative ( ld.DR

NEW TECH STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3), The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 11Th March, 2025. However, The Appeal Could Only Be Filed On 4Rd June, 2025, Resulting In A Delay Of 85 Days. The Reasons For The Delay Are Detailed Below: 1. That Due To Serious Health Condition, The Appellant Was Unable To Continue The Required Legal Proceedings As He Was A Prolonged Sufferer Of Acute Pancreatitis & Chronic Liver Disease (Cld), Both Of Which Significantly Compromised His

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 10.01.2025, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2.1 In this case, the additions were made by the Ld. AO on account of violation

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

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the CPC was correct as there was a huge delay in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act and secondly, 1st appellate authority is not competent to condone

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

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

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

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

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

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

condonation of delay, as supported by a duly sworn affidavit. 4. That the aforesaid delay in submitting the appeal u/s 253 has arisen because of sufficient cause, and the sequence of the events leading to the delay has been as described below: (a) The memorandum of appeal was required to be submitted by 17.05.2074, 1.c. within 60(sixty) days

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

disallowances challenged before him, by passing the order under section 250 post haste prior to the disposal of the petition for condonation of delay