ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Bench: the date of hearing.”

144B 4. At the outset, it has been stated that ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the entire re-assessment proceedings and notice u/s.148 dated 27/07/2023 is barred by limitation, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 17; and judgment

ASHA CHOUDHURY,IMPHAL vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1 IMPHAL, IMPHAL

Bench: the date of hearing.”

144B 4. At the outset, it has been stated that ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the entire re-assessment proceedings and notice u/s.148 dated 27/07/2023 is barred by limitation, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 17; and judgment

ASSAM VALLEY FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,GUWAHATI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Assam Valley Finance & Dcit, Circle 1 Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, House No.1, Niligiri Path, G.S Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca6974B Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

144B of the Act. We note that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 15.03.2021, and thereafter, the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, were issued on 25.01.2022 and 06.02.2022, which were duly complied with the assessee. The ld. AO noted that the assessee has shown loss Assam Valley Finance and Investment

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

144B of the Act dated 25.03.2023. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- Manoj Anand; A.Y. 2018-19 “The sole issue involved in the appellant's appeal is that during the relevant previous year the appellant received

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

reassessment as per the provision of section 147 to 151 of the Act, the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 and time was granted to file return of income for 30 days but assessee did not file return of income. Subsequently, other statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee

LALTANPUIA CHAWGHLUT,AIZAWL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Itat Dated 15.09.2025 As Under:

reassessment as per the provision of section 147 to 151 of the Act, the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2021 and time was granted to file return of income for 30 days but assessee did not file return of income. Subsequently, other statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee

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

reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

reassessment proceedings is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act and making addition of Rs. 1,68,71,990.00 in as much as the income of the appellant is exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAX OFFICER

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

section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act ignoring the contention of appellant that

AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GUWAHATI, INCOME TAS OFFICER

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

section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act ignoring the contention of appellant that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. IMKUMMONGLA PONGEN, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act since the notice was never served upon the assessee personally. It is stated that the assessee is from the Scheduled Tribe of Nagaland and is exempt from Income Tax as per section 10(26) of the Act. The assessee is an agriculturist having paddy field and timber plantation in Longsa village under Mokokchung

RI-BHOI ISPAT & ROLLING MILLS,BYRNIHAT vs. ITO, WARD- BYRNIHAT, BYRNIHAT

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 70." Since tax invoice as per Rule 27 and Rule 29 "cannot be said to be proving the actual physical movement of the good"; However, Hon'ble Supreme Court adds that while the tax invoice and cheque can be said to be proving one of I.T.A. No.: 241/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 RI-BHOI Ispat & Rolling Mills. the documents