AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

143(3). The factum of share application money is already available in the books. It has to be assumed as examined in a scrutiny assessment. For buttressing this point, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC), can be put into service. 17. In view

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

143(3). The factum of share application money is already available in the books. It has to be assumed as examined in a scrutiny assessment. For buttressing this point, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC), can be put into service. 17. In view

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

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

143(3). The factum of share application money is already available in the books. It has to be assumed as examined in a scrutiny assessment. For buttressing this point, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC), can be put into service. 17. In view

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

143(3). Considering the above facts, AO is directed to verify the details as per sec 80(IE) and if eligible to allow the deduction as per provisions of sec 80(IE), the same may be allowed. Thus, this ground is partly allowed. Ground 5: Being general in nature does not require any adjudication. 7. Accordingly the appeal stands partly

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)

143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied a list of paper companies which had provided accommodation entries in form of share capital and share premium Assessing Officer found that some of companies out of said list had provided accommodation entries to assessee during year under consideration - Assessing Officer thus issued noticed under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Whether

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)

143(3) - Subsequently, Investigation Wing of Department supplied a list of paper companies which had provided accommodation entries in form of share capital and share premium Assessing Officer found that some of companies out of said list had provided accommodation entries to assessee during year under consideration - Assessing Officer thus issued noticed under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Whether

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter

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

3), Kolkata, but the assessees challenged such centralisation before the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court by way of a Writ Petition and ultimately the assessments were framed by ACIT, Central Circle, Dibrugarh. There is no dispute that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly served on all these assessees. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter