SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

144 in assessment year 2010-11 and u/s 271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

144 in assessment year 2010-11 and u/s 271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

144 in assessment year 2010-11 and u/s 271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under

SHRI SUBRATA KUMAR SAHA,AGARTALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-AGARTALA, AGARTALA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

144 in assessment year 2010-11 and u/s 271(1)(c) in appeal ITA No.300/Gau/2018; respectively. 2. Learned counsel’s first and foremost plea during the course of hearing is that the assessee’s appeal(s) ITA No.20-24/Gau/2019 raise identical legal issue challenging initiation of sec. 153C proceedings on account of lack of Assessing Officer’s “satisfaction” as prescribed under

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

271(1)(c)/271AAB is to be initiated after careful consideration. Keep proper note, i.e. your satisfaction for initiation of penalty quoting proper section under which penalty proceedings are initiated. Penalty notice is to be issued specifying proper section & served upon the assessee. 4. Sentence regarding approval u/s. 153D is to be mentioned in “note not for the assessee

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. TAMCHI KUSUK, ITANAGAR

In the result, the appeal as well as Cross Objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Copy of order to the assessee. 30.12.2009 (Mrinal K. Das) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.-Tezpur 5. Dissatisfied with the above computation of income, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR & TPS, LAKHIMPUR vs. M/S. M.M. REEDO AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD., ITANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

u/s. 144 of the Act assessing assessee’s income at Rs.3,75,56,400/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Various additional evidences were filed before him. Based on these Page 2 I.T.A. No.: 149/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. M.M. Reedo Automobiles (P) Ltd. details the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made

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