THEMIS T DIENGDOH,SHILLONG vs. ITO WARD-2, SHILLONG, SHILLONG

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.03.2024, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has largely passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,66,07,000/- u/s 69A of the Income

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

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 u/s 10(26) of the Act and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which is as under: “1. That, I am an individual and a Schedule

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 u/s 10(26) of the Act and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which is as under: “1. That, I am an individual and a Schedule

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 u/s 10(26) of the Act and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which is as under: “1. That, I am an individual and a Schedule

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 u/s 10(26) of the Act and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which is as under: “1. That, I am an individual and a Schedule

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

section 10(26) and the assessment was made because the documents filed were not in English translation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay was not condoned

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

section 10(26) and the assessment was made because the documents filed were not in English translation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay was not condoned

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

26) of the Act and stated that since income if exempt from tax, section 271D is not applicable. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271D of the Act by holding as under : “5. Findings: The appeal is delayed. In Forms 35, the appellant has submitted as follows: "Not knowing that an appeal

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.

condoning the delay of 1862 days and not deciding the issue on merits. 2 Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2018 declaring gross total income of Rs. 10,17,148/-. The return was processed on 30.07.2019 making the addition

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

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

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed

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

delays of 49 days in filing of the appeal by the Revenue is condoned as no objection raised by the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 26.10.2018 by declaring total loss of Rs. 36,10,403/-. Subsequently, scrutiny proceedings u/s 153C

PURVANCHAL CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3) (EXEMP), WARD-2(3) (EXEMP), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing of the said appeal, which has been requested to be condoned as under: “1. The appellant is a public charitable trust established on 29/08/1987, having PAN: AACTP4550C and has been regularly filing its return of income. The appellant has been engaged in charitable activities since its inception. 2. The appellant was holding valid registration U/s.12A