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

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)

13. That the delay in filing the appeal is purely unintentional and caused by a bona fide and reasonable belief, without any malafide intention or negligence. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the delay in filing this appeal may and it be admitted for hearing for doing substantial justice in the matter.” 1.1 Considering the detailed reasons given

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

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

condonation of delay in filing form 10CCB without first considering the proviso (b) to section 119(1). 3. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC summarily rejected the appeal mechanically without going through the various case laws/ judgments of Apex Court/High Court ITAT submitted in the grounds of appeal before her. Therefore, severe manifest error occurred in her impugned order

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

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

MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

condoning such delay in filing return of income before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act 13. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view are that since the assessee has filed belated return, the claim of deduction under section

SHRI PARINDRA REANG,AMARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- UDAIPUR, AGARTALA

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

Bench: the Ld CIT (A) who disposed off the case on 23-02-2024 as per the Portal as response was filled against the Notice issued by his honour and disposed off the Appeal, partially allowing the Appeal filed.

delay of more than 100 days, in the filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for requesting the condonation of the same, as under: AFFIDAVIT “I Sri Parindra Reang S/O Ranajoy Reang, of Address - Pilonjoy Para, P.O. Karbook. P.S. Karbook, Sub-Division- Karbook, District- Gomati Tripura, Tripura aged about 44 years, by faith Hindu and by profession

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)

Section 158BFA(2) on the differential amount. 14. The second proviso appended with s. 158BC(1) prohibits an assessee to revise its return filed for the block period. This in response to a notice under s. 158BC if an assessee had filed the return of income, it cannot revise that return. 15. Sec. 158BFA(1) contemplates that if the assessee

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)

Section 158BFA(2) on the differential amount. 14. The second proviso appended with s. 158BC(1) prohibits an assessee to revise its return filed for the block period. This in response to a notice under s. 158BC if an assessee had filed the return of income, it cannot revise that return. 15. Sec. 158BFA(1) contemplates that if the assessee

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)

Section 158BFA(2) on the differential amount. 14. The second proviso appended with s. 158BC(1) prohibits an assessee to revise its return filed for the block period. This in response to a notice under s. 158BC if an assessee had filed the return of income, it cannot revise that return. 15. Sec. 158BFA(1) contemplates that if the assessee

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. As the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and inter- related, the same were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this commons order. First of all we shall adjudicate ITA No. 83/Gau/2023 & C.O. No. 24/GTY/2023 AY 2011-12 as lead case. 7. The only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATIU vs. MANOHAR MERCHANTS (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. As the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and inter- related, the same were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this commons order. First of all we shall adjudicate ITA No. 83/Gau/2023 & C.O. No. 24/GTY/2023 AY 2011-12 as lead case. 7. The only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. POTENCIAL VINCOM (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. As the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and inter- related, the same were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this commons order. First of all we shall adjudicate ITA No. 83/Gau/2023 & C.O. No. 24/GTY/2023 AY 2011-12 as lead case. 7. The only