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

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

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

13,09,000/- in Saving bank account maintained with UCO Bank, and deposited cash of Rs.57,44,500/- in Saving bank account maintained with State Bank of India during the F.Y. 2015-16. Since no return of income was filed, therefore, the assessment was reopened under section ITA Nos.: 274 & 275/GTY/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2022-23 Mitchell Wankhar

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

13,09,000/- in Saving bank account maintained with UCO Bank, and deposited cash of Rs.57,44,500/- in Saving bank account maintained with State Bank of India during the F.Y. 2015-16. Since no return of income was filed, therefore, the assessment was reopened under section ITA Nos.: 274 & 275/GTY/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2022-23 Mitchell Wankhar

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

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

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)

section 80G(5) of the Act merely because a provisional registration is still in force. 10. That due to inadvertence, procedural confusion, and the bona fide belief that the application had been rejected merely for statistical purposes and not through a final adjudication, the appellant did not file an appeal immediately. Moreover, the appellant was under the impression that

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

10. Now the only question before us is that in case of belated return whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act?. Provisions of section 80 AC has a direct bearing on the said issue and AY 2015-16 Mukand Poly Products Page 5 before the amendment brought in Finance Act 2018. Section 80AC reads as under

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

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