ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. HITECH CONSTRUCTION, DHUBRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act. No difference between returned income and the assessed income, keeping in view the fact that the Revenue has not brought any material for levy of penalty - return filed in response to notice 153A of the Act needs to be treated as returned filed u/s 139

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

SANDEEP JALAN,GUWAHATI vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Dated 08.12.2023, Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. Period Of Delay: There Is A Delay Of 494 Days In Filing The Said Appeal

139(4) of the Act on 30.11.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 29,58,250/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) I.T.A. No. 157/GTY/2025 Sandeep Jalan were issued. During the assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the assessee had earned long term capital

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

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

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

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\nmade by the AO to the extent sustained in appeals (ii) an amount of Rs.2,98,51,729/-\nwhich the AO had held as wrongly claimed loss in the belated Return filed

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR , SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income