M/S. ASSAM TEA CORPORATION LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Girish Agrawal

disallowed and added back to the total income, on account of cessation of liabilities appearing in its accounts as on 31.03.2012 or write off of sundry creditors. For furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, penalty is hereby initiated u/s 271

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

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

u/s 250 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 running into 1017 pages allowing the deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act and the crux of his finding is summarized as under: “(i) That, in respect of an assessment year whose proceedings had abated, a Return of Income filed in compliance to the Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, substitutes the prior/earlier

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. MEGHALAYA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, LUMJINGSHAI, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of two amounts (i) an amount of Rs 6,31,275/- In respect of disallowances

DEBEN THAOSEN,HAFLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Deben Thaosen V/S. Income Tax Officer Sengya Sombudhan Raji Ward-1, Silchar Room Sarkari Bagan, Halflong, No.21 Aayakar N.C. Hills, Assam Bhawan, Pwd Road, [Pan No.Aedpt 9417 R] Silchar-788001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri M.C Omi Ningshen, Jcit Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bemch:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong’S Order Dated 25.06.2018 Passed In Case No.Cit(A)/Shillolng/10040/2017-18 Involving Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. Heard Learned Departmental Representative. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition / Affidavit Dated 15.04.2019 Coupled With His Medical History & On Account Of The Revenue’S No Objection, We Condone The Impugned Seventeen Days Delay In Filing Of The Taxpayer’S Appeal. The Same Is Now Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Be that as it may, hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) settled the law long back that each and every disallowance(s) / addition(s) made during the course of former proceedings does not necessarily attract section 271(1)(c) penalty

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(26) of the Act by passing a non-speaking order that assessee has not explained the exemption claimed u/s. 10(26) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the addition only in respect of that work receipt which was evidenced by work order issued by Govt

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(26) of the Act by passing a non-speaking order that assessee has not explained the exemption claimed u/s. 10(26) of the Act whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the addition only in respect of that work receipt which was evidenced by work order issued by Govt

ELLORA DEBI,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penalty was imposed upon the assessee on 27.11.2018 u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance to notice u/s 142(1). Further notice u/s 142(1) was also issued upon the assessee asking as to why the assessment should not be best of judgement u/s 144 on 26.11.2018. However, the assessee again did not furnish any reply to notice issued u/s