TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , 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

TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - UDAIPUR , 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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 10.01.2025, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2.1 In this case, the additions were made by the Ld. AO on account of violation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. THE ASSAM COOERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

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 19.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATIU vs. MANOHAR MERCHANTS (P) 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. POTENCIAL VINCOM (P) 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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. POTENCIAL VINCOM (P) 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