ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

condone such delay in filing of the appeals by the assessee. 4. The similar issues are involved in all the appeals filed by the assessee. Therefore, we have taken ITA No. 206 / GTY / 2025 for adjudication and our observations will cover all the appeals filed by the assessee. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

23 dated 14.07.2025. None appeared on behalf of the assessee but an adjournment application was filed for both the appeals; however, the adjournment was not granted and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. Since the issues in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order

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

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

23 dated 14.07.2025. None appeared on behalf of the assessee but an adjournment application was filed for both the appeals; however, the adjournment was not granted and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. Since the issues in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order

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

23 of the said intimation order, was not justified in arbitrarily taking the same figure at Rs. NIL in page no. 16 of the said intimation order while computing total income of the appellant, which is self-contradictory and bad in law. 4. For that the ld. Addl. CIT(A) ought to have hold that

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

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)

10 11. The Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Sunder Agencies v. Dy. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Mumbai) 610 : (1997) 63 ITD 245 (Mumbai) has made extremely lucid enunciation of law on the subject and we cannot do better than to extract some of the observations made in that decision; "23.There are adequate safeguards present against any possible misuse

SMT. MAYA RANI 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)

10 11. The Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Sunder Agencies v. Dy. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Mumbai) 610 : (1997) 63 ITD 245 (Mumbai) has made extremely lucid enunciation of law on the subject and we cannot do better than to extract some of the observations made in that decision; "23.There are adequate safeguards present against any possible misuse

SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA 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)

10 11. The Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Sunder Agencies v. Dy. CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (Mumbai) 610 : (1997) 63 ITD 245 (Mumbai) has made extremely lucid enunciation of law on the subject and we cannot do better than to extract some of the observations made in that decision; "23.There are adequate safeguards present against any possible misuse

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

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

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year