SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

SPECIAL JUDGE ASSAM GUWAHATI,GUWAHATI vs. ITO-TDS2, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

section 234E, contending that it is ultra vires and illegal. 3. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 31.12.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee citing the reason that appeal was filed after a delay of approximately 7 years and 6 months and there was lack of sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

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

35, 625/- in page no. 22 of the intimation order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s 143(1), was not justified in arbitrarily taking the same figure at Rs. NIL in page no. 16 of the said intimation order while computing total income of the appellant, which is self-contradictory and bad in law. 3. For that the ld. Addl

ARUP BAKSHI,BONGAIGAON vs. ITO, WARD -1, BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making Computation of Tax on income of Rs.26,24,091/- even after making assessment order u/s 143(3) on returned income at Rs. 14,35

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

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

MANTO TINGKHAHAM,NAMSANGMUKH vs. OFFICE OF THE ITO, DIGBOI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none attended but since several past dates have resulted in no appearance by anybody on behalf of the assessee, hence, it was decided to proceed with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 In this case

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 271D is not applicable. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271D of the Act by holding as under : “5. Findings: The appeal is delayed. In Forms 35, the appellant has submitted as follows: "Not knowing that an appeal had to be filed online." The delay is condoned

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 is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. I.T.A. No. 177/GTY/2024 Shri Parindra Reang 2. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.02.2024, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 2.1 In this case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, DIBRUGARH vs. T & T PROJECTS LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result and for the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.208/Gau/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

condone the delay and admit the appeal of Revenue for hearing. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that the Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,27,08,650/-. The original assessment of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 31.03.2013 by computing

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10(26) and the assessment was made because the documents filed were not in English translation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay was not condoned as the justification relating to the assessee not being familiar with online tax filing procedure and Form No. 35

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10(26) and the assessment was made because the documents filed were not in English translation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay was not condoned as the justification relating to the assessee not being familiar with online tax filing procedure and Form No. 35

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

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 the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in facts by observing that the appellant failed to furnish the grounds of appeal, even though the same was filed

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ,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 LIMITED ,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