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 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

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

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.

condoning the delay of 1862 days and not deciding the issue on merits. 2 Shiwaji Pd. Jaiswal 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2018 declaring gross total income of Rs. 10,17,148/-. The return was processed on 30.07.2019 making the addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

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 INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

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

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

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