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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the 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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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

39,89,732 PB-16 BAMALWA India Ltd. TOTAL ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income

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)

purchases either drew a blank or as in the case of Shri Vikas Bansal, the facts of 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

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)

purchases either drew a blank or as in the case of Shri Vikas Bansal, the facts of 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

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 143(3) on 30.03.2016. If this information was possessed by the Revenue in 2014, then why, while assessing the income of the assessee from assignment of sub-contract of the above projects was accepted by the Revenue. It could have been enquired at that point of time and assessee could be show-caused that it is a bogus profit