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)

purchases either drew a blank or as in the case of Shri Vikas Bansal, the facts of bogus accommodation entries were confirmed. Thereafter, a total addition of Rs. 202,30,39,718/- was made by the Ld. AO. 3.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, it was averred that the assessee was only an entry provider and hence should

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

JAYANTA KHAUND,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT CIR-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

bogus purchases (liability shown as sundry creditors) as mentioned in the assessment order. The addition was made as the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim of purchases made and the existence of the sundry creditors could not be proved in spite of having been provided several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A) also issued direction

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. BHAGWATI DEVII BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. VISHAL BAMALWA , DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

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

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search