SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was not conversant with taxation laws and was entirely dependent on his tax consultant, who was also supposed to receive the notices and respond to them appropriately. The Ld. AR pleaded that ignorance of tax procedures and incompetency of the tax consultant should

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR, CACHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was not conversant with taxation laws and was entirely dependent on his tax consultant, who was also supposed to receive the notices and respond to them appropriately. The Ld. AR pleaded that ignorance of tax procedures and incompetency of the tax consultant should

SHIBU ROY,RONGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

section 249(3) of the Act. 2. Before us, the Ld. AR mentioned that the assessee was not conversant with taxation laws and was entirely dependent on his tax consultant, who was also supposed to receive the notices and respond to them appropriately. The Ld. AR pleaded that ignorance of tax procedures and incompetency of the tax consultant should

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

21]” 2. Similarly, in the case of Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Vs CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the finding of the ITAT that if ABCI Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT the appellate offers any amount for taxation for the purpose of purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

21]” 2. Similarly, in the case of Sudarshan Silk and Sarees Vs CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the finding of the ITAT that if ABCI Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT the appellate offers any amount for taxation for the purpose of purchasing peace and assessment has been made based upon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

section 250 of the income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal I.T.A. No. 159/GTY/2025 Assam Power Distribution Company Limited Centre(NFAC), Delhi was communicated on 11/03/2025. Consequently, the due date for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was on or before. However, the appeal

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

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

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

21 days in A.Y. 2014-15, A.Y. 2015-16 & 20 days in A.Y. 2016-17. The ld AR stated that in terms of provisions of Section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to admit the appeal even after expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (3) & (4) of Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

MUKAND POLY PRODUCTS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

condonation of delay in filing the return pending before the AY 2015-16 Mukand Poly Products Page 3 Honourable Central Board of Direct Taxes ["CBDT" for short hereafter]. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and the learned CIT(A) may be directed to dispose of the appeal on merit after the Hon'ble CBDT disposes

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 80/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Potential Vincom Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati Vs Private Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 22/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Potential Vincom Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Tax, Central Circle-1, Guwahati Limited 5/1, 3Rd Floor Clive Row Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecp7667D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. As the issues involved in all these appeals are identical and inter- related, the same were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this commons order. First of all we shall adjudicate ITA No. 83/Gau/2023 & C.O. No. 24/GTY/2023 AY 2011-12 as lead case. 7. The only