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)

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 be assessed on the commission income which deserved to be estimated @ 0.15% to 0.25% of the total turnover

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

GREENWOOD RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUWAHATI

In the result, ITA No. 114/GTY/2024 for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

iii. ITA No. 112/GTY/2024: A.Y. 2015-16: I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Greenwood Resorts Private Limited. “1 For that assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed as no proper satisfaction has been recorded as required under the provision of I.T. Act. 2 For that additions

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra