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

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

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

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

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

SRI PICKLU PAUL,KARIMGANJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SILCHAR, SILCHAR

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

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

36 is dated 02.07.2018. Thus, there is a delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed an application dated 02.07.2018 seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit. It is stated in the application that the assessee is the Proprietor of M/s. P.P. Jewellers, Karimganj in the District of Karimganj, Assam. The impugned order was served upon the wife

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. SATISH JALAN, SHILLONG

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 24.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NER, Guwahati [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee allegedly did not provide

NEW TECH STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,ASSAM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3), The Appeal Was Required To Be Filed On Or Before 11Th March, 2025. However, The Appeal Could Only Be Filed On 4Rd June, 2025, Resulting In A Delay Of 85 Days. The Reasons For The Delay Are Detailed Below: 1. That Due To Serious Health Condition, The Appellant Was Unable To Continue The Required Legal Proceedings As He Was A Prolonged Sufferer Of Acute Pancreatitis & Chronic Liver Disease (Cld), Both Of Which Significantly Compromised His

condoned as under: “The appellant has preferred an appeal in Form 36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the provisions of section 253(3), the appeal was required to be filed on or before 11th March, 2025. However, the appeal

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.

2. That the aforesaid company had preferred an appeal on 17.03.2022 under section 250 against an original assessment order dated 27.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 1448 of the Act in its case that was numbered as Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10102742. Such appeal was disposed of by the learned CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati, Office of the Commissioner

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

2. For the reasons stated Revenue's petition 21.05.2017 seeking condonation of thirteen days' delay and assessee's no objection thereto, we 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

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

2. For the reasons stated Revenue's petition 21.05.2017 seeking condonation of thirteen days' delay and assessee's no objection thereto, we 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

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

2. For the reasons stated Revenue's petition 21.05.2017 seeking condonation of thirteen days' delay and assessee's no objection thereto, we 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

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

2. For the reasons stated Revenue's petition 21.05.2017 seeking condonation of thirteen days' delay and assessee's no objection thereto, we 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

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

2. For the reasons stated Revenue's petition 21.05.2017 seeking condonation of thirteen days' delay and assessee's no objection thereto, we 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

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs. ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order passed under Section 250 r.w.s. 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The date of the order passing the appeal order is 14/05/2025. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant wanted to appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

HARI NARAYAN BORKATAKY,TINSUKIA vs. ITO WARD - 1, TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

36 before the Hon'ble Bench against the order passed under Section 250 r.w.s. 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The date of the order passing the appeal order is 14/05/2025. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant wanted to appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal