SAIKIA AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NOTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay of the assessee in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Coming to the appeals, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the AO had passed an order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the fact that AO had bothered

SAIKIA AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NOTH LAKHIMPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TEZPUR, TEZPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

condone the delay of the assessee in filing both the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. Coming to the appeals, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the AO had passed an order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the fact that AO had bothered

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

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

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

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

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

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

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

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

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

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

154/- (being 0.64% of gross receipts Rs. 3,36,76,80,365/-) and now the Revenue and the assessee have challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A). 10. We note that ld. AO in the assessment order had alleged that the assessee has not furnished the verifiable details of expenses on account of cost of material consumed and, therefore, reasonableness

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.”

section 154 of the Act. 3. Dissatisfied with the above, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the ld. CIT(A) sustained the order passed by the ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 4. Aggrieved by the above order of ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

condone the impugned eight days’ delay in filing of latter appeal ITA No.307/Gau/2018. 3. Coming to the merits of the former issue, we notice that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action denying sec. 80IE deduction of ₹1,20,13,510/- vide following detailed discussion:- “3. Ground Nos. 1,,3,4 for AY 2015-16 and Ground

L.K. TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DIBRUGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

condone the impugned eight days’ delay in filing of latter appeal ITA No.307/Gau/2018. 3. Coming to the merits of the former issue, we notice that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action denying sec. 80IE deduction of ₹1,20,13,510/- vide following detailed discussion:- “3. Ground Nos. 1,,3,4 for AY 2015-16 and Ground

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,TRIPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,AGARTALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

154 of the Act. 2. The assessee’s last three appeals ITA Nos. 63 & 64/GAU/2018 and ITA No. 167/GAU/2018 for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the very CIT(A)’s separate orders dated 04.12.2017 except in last assessment year involving order dated 23.09.2016, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, respectively. Heard both