ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(4), SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. NORTH EAST SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS, MEGHALAYA

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

section. 2. For that the learned A.O., CPC was not justified in making adjustment u/s 143(1) when CBDT vide Circular No. 2/2020 has issued beneficial circular for condonation of delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI vs. ARUNACHAL TEA COMPANY, MARGHERITA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the Cross objection is also condoned and the CO is also admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income seeking deduction under section 80-IE of the Act, which was denied by the CPC as the required audit report on Form No. 10CCB was not filed along

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

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

MEGHALAYA CO-OP. APEX BANK LIMITED,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Meghalaya Co-Op. Apex Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle - Shillong Vs. M. G. Road, Shillong- 793001 (Pan: Aaam8227G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in filing an appeal against order u/s 143(3)/263 after 522 days. The Learned CIT(A) did not consider the facts that during the intervening period of 522 days between the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 15/11/2016 and filing of appeal 2 Meghalaya Co-op Apex Bank Ltd., AY 2011-12 u/s 246A

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

condone any delay in filing of Form 10B as per the aforesaid Circular No. 2 of 2020 dated 03/01/2020. Considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the appellant’s submissions. Further, keeping in view the above mentioned legal provisions as per Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear

PAWAN COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI ASSAM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

condonation of delay, as supported by a duly sworn affidavit. 4. That the aforesaid delay in submitting the appeal u/s 253 has arisen because of sufficient cause, and the sequence of the events leading to the delay has been as described below: (a) The memorandum of appeal was required to be submitted by 17.05.2074, 1.c. within 60(sixty) days

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

SHIWAJI PD. JAISWAL,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal of 1862 days delay which is as under: "Dear Sir, Sub: Prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal for the assessment year 2018-19 against the Assessment Order issued U/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be uphold. 7. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and order of authorities below. We noted that the return was processed under Section 143

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

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

condone the delay for both the years before the first appellate authority and thereafter set aside both the impugned orders. We remand these cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143

KEERTI FLOUR MILLS,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the first appellate authority and it was also prayed before him that the deduction under Section 80IE of the Act was due to the assessee and should have been allowed. The Ld. AR stated that due to non-condonation of delay by the first appellate authority, the assessee has been denied a justifiable claim under Section 80IE of the Act. The Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned order should be set aside and either his claim should be adjudicated on merit by this Bench or the matter could be, altern

condone the delay for both the years before the first appellate authority and thereafter set aside both the impugned orders. We remand these cases back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee under the provision of section 143

ARUP BAKSHI,BONGAIGAON vs. ITO, WARD -1, BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making Computation of Tax on income of Rs.26,24,091/- even after making assessment order u/s 143(3) on returned income

NEW TECH STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3), The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 11Th March, 2025. However, The Appeal Could Only Be Filed On 4Rd June, 2025, Resulting In A Delay Of 85 Days. The Reasons For The Delay Are Detailed Below: 1. That Due To Serious Health Condition, The Appellant Was Unable To Continue The Required Legal Proceedings As He Was A Prolonged Sufferer Of Acute Pancreatitis & Chronic Liver Disease (Cld), Both Of Which Significantly Compromised His

delay has been requested to be condoned as under: “The appellant has preferred an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed under Section 143

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) of the I.T.A. No.: 195/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Picklu Paul. Act, dated 30.12.2016. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR and on the basis of the paper book filed by the assessee. 2. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The date

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