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

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

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

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,CACHAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

ANJAN KUMAR PAUL,HAILAKANDI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15, AY 2015- Page 1 of 4 ITA No. 206 - 212 / GTY / 2025 Anjan Kumar Paul-Vs- The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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 is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.03.2024. I.T.A. No. 283/GTY/2024 Pawan Communications Private Limited 2.1 In this case

SHRI PARINDRA REANG,AMARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- UDAIPUR, AGARTALA

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

Bench: the Ld CIT (A) who disposed off the case on 23-02-2024 as per the Portal as response was filled against the Notice issued by his honour and disposed off the Appeal, partially allowing the Appeal filed.

delay of more than 100 days, in the filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for requesting the condonation of the same, as under: AFFIDAVIT “I Sri Parindra Reang S/O Ranajoy Reang, of Address - Pilonjoy Para, P.O. Karbook. P.S. Karbook, Sub-Division- Karbook, District- Gomati Tripura, Tripura aged about 44 years, by faith Hindu and by profession

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

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

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year

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

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

condone the impugned delay of 41 days in filing of both these appeals. The same are now taken for adjudication on merits. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that many of the issues raised in these appeals are identical. We therefore proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year