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

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

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

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

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 80IC of the Act cannot be entertained/allowed

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

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 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

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

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 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

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

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 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

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

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 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

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

1) of the Act and, hence, the Returns of Income filed by the Assessee, in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 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

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)

B. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order dated 27.01.2023, the appellant vide its petition dated 15/05/2023 filed before the Ld. CIT(E), Kolkata, applied for rectification U/s.154 of the Act of his order dtd.27/01/2023. The said petition was sent through Speed Post dtd.18/05/2023 (Consignment No. ES984540143IN), contending that the appellant was rightly covered under clause (iii) of the first

GURU TEG BAHADUR ACADEMIC SOCIETY,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), EXEMPTION, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 11 (2) of the Act. 5. For that the Id. CIT was not justified both in law and on facts in arbitrarily branding the order of assessment passed by the Id. AO as erroneous which was passed after due application of mind by the Id. AO. 6. For that the impugned order having been passed in gross violation

ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LTD,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. M/S. ASSAM COMPANY LIMITED, KOKATA

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts

M/S. ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, DIBRUGARH

In the result, I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 for Assessment Year:

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. As in the captioned appeals most of the issues raised by both the parties are common, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, the same are taken up together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Brief facts