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)

delay is hereby condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication, along with the main appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Both these appeals arise from orders u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A).” 2.1 The facts

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

56,347.00 5 Earthwork Expenses 10,04,03,520.00 6 Fabrication and Erection Expenses 2,66,95,843.00 7 Pile Casting 2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1

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

56,347.00 5 Earthwork Expenses 10,04,03,520.00 6 Fabrication and Erection Expenses 2,66,95,843.00 7 Pile Casting 2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1

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

56,347.00 5 Earthwork Expenses 10,04,03,520.00 6 Fabrication and Erection Expenses 2,66,95,843.00 7 Pile Casting 2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1

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

56,347.00 5 Earthwork Expenses 10,04,03,520.00 6 Fabrication and Erection Expenses 2,66,95,843.00 7 Pile Casting 2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1

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

56,347.00 5 Earthwork Expenses 10,04,03,520.00 6 Fabrication and Erection Expenses 2,66,95,843.00 7 Pile Casting 2,49,85,313.00 8 Retaining Work and Culvert Expenses 1,90,70,003.00 9 Supply of Materials 1,55,95,404.00 10 WBM Expenses 1,54,08,401.00 11 GSB Expenses 1,12,86,445.00 Total 1

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

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shillong is not justified in dismissing the grounds taken by the Appellant before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, GUWAHATI

The appeal is allowed and questions Nos

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble

1. The present appeal arises from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 11.03.2025. 1.1 In this appeal, there is a delay of 166 days, which has been requested to be condoned by the Revenue as under

DEBASHISH BISWAS (DECEASED),TEZPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati against the ex-parte Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi U/s.250 without providing actual and sufficient opportunity of hearing. This is true and correct.

1 to 4 are true and correct to the best of knowledge, belief and information and I swear and sign this Affidavit on this 27nd day of January, 2025 at Tezpur.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said affidavit, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The present appeal emanates from the order

SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

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

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

1 of 4 ITA No. 56 -57 / GTY / 2025 Shauquat Alam -vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY : 2018-19 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, as per information available in multilayer NMS of AIIMS Portal of ITBA under the category

SHAUQUAT ALAM,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-2, GUWAHATI

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

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

1 of 4 ITA No. 56 -57 / GTY / 2025 Shauquat Alam -vs- The ACIT, Circle-2, Guwahati AY : 2018-19 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and pertains to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, as per information available in multilayer NMS of AIIMS Portal of ITBA under the category

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

56 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

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

56 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal on account of delay without discussing the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal

SOMEN BHATTACHARJEE,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA ASSAM

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Somen Bhattacharjee Ward-1, Tinsukia Assam B/3/11 Northen Park Bansdroni, Sector-3, Tinsukia, Assam Vs. Kolkata-700070, West Bengal Pin-786125 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapb0292M Assessee By : Shri Prasanjit Das, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025

delay is for Bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore, we condone the same. Somen Bhattacharjee; A.Y. 2018-19 03. We note that the assessment order has been framed by the National e-assessment center, Delhi in which an addition of ₹31,81,000/-was made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act in respect of difference between the purchase consideration