NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

NAGAHAT TEA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, JORHAT

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

36(1) (va) based on various grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before her. 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) FARIDABAD, NFAC, wrongly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 119(2)(b) for denying condonation of delay

ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(4), SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. NORTH EAST SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF THE HOLY CROSS, MEGHALAYA

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

36. Thereafter immediately Form No. 36A was filed. Sir, there was no intention to delay the process but it happened due to ignorance for which we may kindly be condoned and Form No. 36A may kindly be condoned and Form No. 36A may kindly be admitted.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said application for condoning of the delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIGBOI, DIGBOI vs. ARUNACHAL TEA COMPANY, MARGHERITA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing the Cross objection is also condoned and the CO is also admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income seeking deduction under section 80-IE of the Act, which was denied by the CPC as the required audit report on Form No. 10CCB was not filed along

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

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

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

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

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)

36, which reproduced below: "Search and Seizure u/s. 132 of the Income tax act,1961 were conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee alongwith other members of the group on 8.12.99 and subsequent dates. In the course of search books of accounts cash were seized as described in the panchanamas. On the business premises at Office Tilla

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)

36, which reproduced below: "Search and Seizure u/s. 132 of the Income tax act,1961 were conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee alongwith other members of the group on 8.12.99 and subsequent dates. In the course of search books of accounts cash were seized as described in the panchanamas. On the business premises at Office Tilla

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)

36, which reproduced below: "Search and Seizure u/s. 132 of the Income tax act,1961 were conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee alongwith other members of the group on 8.12.99 and subsequent dates. In the course of search books of accounts cash were seized as described in the panchanamas. On the business premises at Office Tilla

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 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

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