JIA MONGRI SANGMA,NONGALBIRA vs. ITO, SHILLONG

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes and the penalty appeals are allowed with the\nabove observation

271 AAC(i) & 270A of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 (the Act).\nITA No. 441/GTY/2025\n2.\nThe Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment has\nbeen framed by the Id. AO u/s 144/ 144B of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 (the Act) vide order dated 23.12.2022, when the assessee\nfailed to make any compliance before

HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH LIMITED,ITANAGAR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE TEZPUR, TEZPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

144 of the Act. Admittedly, this determination was done on an allegedly invalid return. Thereafter, the Ld. AO proceeded to levy of penalty of Rs. 39,08,542/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here it needs to be mentioned that for A.Y. 2013-14 the facts are the same even though the impugned amounts are different

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

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at the total income of ₹37,11,116/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at the total income of ₹37,11,116/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271