SUMAN AHMED,GAURIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- DHUBRI, DHUBRI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Gty/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of Suman Ahmed an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking

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

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. However, from the facts it is clear that the appellant has failed to file any application before the Competent Authority i.e. Ld. CIT(Exemption

D P SCHOOL SOCIETY,NAGALAND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD TWO(THREE)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The First Appellate Authority. Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Gave The Reasons For Said Delay As Under:

condoning the delay of filing appeal and failed to adopt the settled principle of liberal interpretation applicable to institutions serving a non- profit motive. It is a well-established principle of law that the expression "sufficient cause" must be interpreted liberally, particularly in matters involving charitable organizations whose objective is to serve the public good and not to earn profits

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No. 26/GTY/2025 Rajulhoubienuo Angami 2. The present appeal emanates from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 24.06.2024. 2.1 In this

DRISHTI FOUNDATION,DIBRUGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Exemption) (hereinafter referred to\nas the “Ld. CIT(E)"] dated 21.06.2026.\n\n2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of\nappeal is against the order of Id. CIT (E), rejecting the application for\nregistration u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without\nproviding proper opportunity of hearing. The Id. Counsel

EDUCATION INDIA, SHILLONG,SHILLONG vs. ITO, WARD-1, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Exemption)’] passed in respect of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 14.10.2024. 1.1. Along with the appeal memo, the assessee has filed an affidavit and a petition seeking 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

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 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

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

TAREM DARANG,PASIGHAT, ARUNCHAL PRADESH vs. ITO WARD ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Exemption)’] passed in respect of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 14.10.2024. 1.1. Along with the appeal memo, the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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).

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none attended but since several past dates have resulted in no appearance by anybody on behalf of the assessee, hence, it was decided to proceed with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 In this case

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

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case dismiss the appeal of the assessee and even the income of the assessee is exempt

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

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case dismiss the appeal of the assessee and even the income of the assessee is exempt

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

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case dismiss the appeal of the assessee and even the income of the assessee is exempt

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

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

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case dismiss the appeal of the assessee and even the income of the assessee is exempt