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)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.86,47,78,624/-ignoring the submission of appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.86,66,86,730/- being

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

2) was issued on 28/06/2022 and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, to examine the CASS reason, notices u/s.142(1) were issued through e-assessment module of ITBA. In response to these notices, replies have been received. iii. To verify the genuineness of the above transaction entered into by the above party with the assessee, the assessee vide notice u/s.142

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

bogus and unsecured loans was also disallowed and a sum of Rs. 47,10,000/- was also added to the income and the assessment was made accordingly. 3.1. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee I.T.A. Nos.: 110 to 118/GTY/2024 Assessment Years

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made

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

15. The ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that the claim of the assessee is bogus and thereupon he assessed it. He denied the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and made additions in the respective hands of each assessee. 16. Dissatisfied with the additions made