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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINAY 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. PRAMOD KUMAR 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section 153A could

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 147/143(3) was completed on 18/12/2017 determining the assessed income of the assessee company at Rs.21,92,45,159/- after disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 147/143(3) was completed on 18/12/2017 determining the assessed income of the assessee company at Rs.21,92,45,159/- after disallowing of Rs.71,40,599/- Excess Depreciation claimed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. 2. The DDIT (Inv), Unit-1 (2), Guwahati has informed that during the course of search and seizure operations conducted at the Registered

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)

1) of IT Act in absence of any finding that the books of account not found to be reliable for computation of income and therefore such additions cannot be sustained in law. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the aggregate additions of Rs.2