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

34,020 by treating the deposits in the bank as unexplained money under section 69A, interest received which was asset added under section 56 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits

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

34,020 by treating the deposits in the bank as unexplained money under section 69A, interest received which was asset added under section 56 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits

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

10. For that after accepting the fact that the returned income was NIL, the ld. Addl. CIT(A) was not justified in not deleting the arbitrarily charged interest u/s 234C of the Act at Rs. 1,40,188/-, which is not in accordance with the law. 11. For that the impugned order having been passed in gross violation of principles

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

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

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

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

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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,TRIPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, 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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , 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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, 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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, 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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, 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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. T & T PROJECTS LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result and for the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.208/Gau/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that the Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,27,08,650/-. The original assessment of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 31.03.2013 by computing