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. ITA Nos.: 241 & 242/GTY/2025 AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Toshevi Keditsu Sema. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A

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. ITA Nos.: 241 & 242/GTY/2025 AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Toshevi Keditsu Sema. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 69A

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

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

MITCHELL WANKHAR,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-2, SHILLONG

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings initiated by the department were bad in law as no notice u/s.148A and subsequent order passed u/s148(d) were served on your appellant. Further, copies of satisfaction note and sanction from higher authority was also not provided to your appellant before issuing notice u/s. 148. The notice u/s. 148 was issued by JAO and not by NFAC

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

Section 69A & 69C of the Act. 2.1 It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not succeed as he did not make any presentation with respect to opportunities given for hearing. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal, with the following grounds: “1. For that the learned A.O. has erred

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

Section 69A & 69C of the Act. 2.1 It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not succeed as he did not make any presentation with respect to opportunities given for hearing. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal, with the following grounds: “1. For that the learned A.O. has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

69A arising out of dealing in bogus penny stock. 2 Satinder Singh, AY: 2016-17 3. From the order sheet entries, we not that no one has represented the assessee before the Tribunal in the past as well as today except for one day where the assessee himself appeared and sought adjournment. 4. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR contended 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI vs. BMG INFORMATICS PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

69A of the Act by treating it as unaccounted receipts. Revenue has also challenged the basis of giving relief by the Ld. CIT(A) by holding that assessee was not confronted with the impounded material relied on by the Ld. AO and without giving opportunity to the assessee for cross examination. Against this appeal by the revenue, assessee has challenged