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

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 prior to processing of return. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the exemption claimed falls under sec. 143(1)(a)(ii

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

143(1) of the Act, dated 02.11.2022. 2. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) NFAC has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 52,80,843/-u/s 80-IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made on account of failure to furnish form no. 10CCB

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

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

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

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.

delay of 211 days which has been requested to be condoned through an affidavit as under: “I Rishi Gupta (PAN ACMPG2685H), Son of Shri Raghubir Singh Gupta, aged about 57 (Fifty Seven) Years, resident of Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F A Road, Kumarpara, P.O. Guwahati-781001, Police Station: Bharalumukh in the district of Kamrup (Metropolitan), Assam, do hereby solemnly declare

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

delays of 49 days in filing of the appeal by the Revenue is condoned as no objection raised by the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 26.10.2018 by declaring total loss of Rs. 36,10,403/-. Subsequently, scrutiny proceedings u/s 153C

UTTAM KUMAR CHETIA,NATUN NIRMALI GAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), DIBRUGARH

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. Page 1 of 4 ITA NO. 240 / GTY / 2024 Uttam Kumar Chetia -Vs- The ITO, Ward-1 (3), Dibrugarh AY: 2017-18 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under:- (i) On the facts

PRIYANSHU BOIRAGI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

ii. For that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified also in not considering the CBDT Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/misc/140/2015/ITJ dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & PAC) dated 17.11.1971 as submitted by the appellant online firstly on 16.01.2016 & secondly on 05.10.2021 vide ANNEXURES - 5 & 6 in the appellant's written submission dated 16.01.2021 while passing the appellate order

JAGJEET SINGH & SONS,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Hon’Ble

ii) That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by erring in holding that there was delay in filing of appeal, as from the facts it is evident that the appeal was filed within 30 days of receipt of demand notice as mentioned in Form 35 itself. (iii) That