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

139 of the Act declaring the income at Rs. 7,04,58,179/- & Rs. 9,05,12,240/-. However, in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act the assessee declared income at Rs. Page 3 of 23 I.T.A. Nos.: 133, 134 & 135/GTY/2020 AYs: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Hitech Construction. 9

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

139(1) of the Act showing total income of ₹11,46,33,570/-. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 22.12.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee belonging to ‘Contractors Group’. Subsequent to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the return of income for the above assessment

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

139(1) of the Act showing total income of ₹11,46,33,570/-. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 22.12.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee belonging to ‘Contractors Group’. Subsequent to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the return of income for the above assessment

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

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

9). In view of this, consequently, return was filed\nagain this time u/s 139(4) on 07.10.2017.\n\nAssessment in this case was completed vide order u/s 143(3) of the Income tax\nAct dated 11/12/2018 at total loss of Rs.(-) 2,74,27,701/- as against the\nreturned loss of Rs.(-)2,98,51,729/- claimed by the assessee

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

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

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

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally

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:

139 of the Act. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee with the necessary approval from the competent authority and procedure were followed still the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and various other opportunities granted to the assessee. Finally