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)

133(6) of the Act (notices issued in 8 cases is mentioned on page 3 of the Ld. AO’s order). Only one Shri Vikas Bansal against whom an amount of Rs. 14,80,03,477/- was shown, responded by saying that he had not supplied any coal to the assessee and the assessee had only received fake bills issued

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Mr Vinod dated 29.11.2022, but Mr Vinod did not file any response to the above said notice to the Assessing officer. ix. The appellant assessee has also not provided any evidence, details/letter which the assessee may have sent to the GST Authorities that, he does not have any transaction with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

133(6) were issued to a sample of individuals to verify the genuineness of expenses. Some individuals responded with the required details, while others did not. Payments made to certain individuals were considered bogus, and the AO added back these amounts to the income under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. Section 69C allows the deemed income

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement