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

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

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

2)(b) for denying 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

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

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

2)(b) for denying 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

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

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

2)(b) for denying 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

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

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

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

condoned. It was submitted that the filing of the audit report was directory and not mandatory in nature and the delay occurred due to a technical default. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that the same may be confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant

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

2 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 104/Gty/2010 I.T.A. No.: 183 & 440/Gty/2013 I.T.A. No.: 12/Gty/2018 I.T.A. Nos.: 108, 109, 119, 120, 121, 123 & 161/Gty/2019 M/s. Assam Company India Limited (Erstwhile Assam Company Limited). parties. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that both the parties were prevented for reasonable cause in filing the instant