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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

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

forwarded by the DIT, Kolkata, which was based upon the search carried out upon some third entity. It is just a theoretical compilation of certain facts, which was never examined analytically by any authority because it is not disclosed by the ld. Assessing Officer, whether any addition was made in the hands of those entry providers/brokers and if made, then

SHRI KOMAL KUMBHAT,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.136/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Komal Kumbhat…………...................................................……Appellant 234, G.N.B Road, 2Nd Floor, Opposite Gauhati Club Bus Stand-Above Sarita Restaurant, Guwahati-781003. [Pan: Aedpk8036P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Guwahati...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri H. S. Kumbhat, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N. T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 25, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Guwahati-1, Guwahati (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Through Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Agitated Two Issues I.E. (I) Addition Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities On Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee Of Rs.21,80,417/- Treating The Same As Bogus & Thereby Adding The Same

loss or gain. But in the case of Kappac Pharma there was an abnormal gain claimed which was to the tune of 4540%. Owing to sale of 1500 shares on 21.03.2014 for a sum of Rs. 10,45,200/- and 1700 shares on 24.03.2014 for a sum of Rs. 11,98,500/- through Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. He further

UDAI CHAND CHOPRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.55/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Udai Chand Chopra……….......…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Kamal Kumar Golchha, Room No.10, Ram Kumar Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Chatribari Road, Guwahati-781001. [Pan: Abqpc9800P] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Guwahati ……..…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. P. Bhati, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 13, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 31.12.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 144 Of The Assessing Officer Dated 23.12.2016. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

carried out by the assessee regarding sale of ancestral land, purchases and sale of immovable property during the year were placed before the Assessing Officer but he has not considered the same and there are apparent mistake in the facts narrated by ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order. One of which is regarding 50% ownership of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI vs. M/S. S.R.K.M. STEELS (P) LTD, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) M/S S.R.K.M Steels (P) Ltd. Room No.707, 7Th Floor, Aayakar M/S Srkm Steels (P) Ltd. Lokhra Bhawan Poorva, G.S. Road, Road, P.O. Sawkuchi, Guwahati- Vs. Guwahati-781005, Assam 781034, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalcs5046E Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025

carries on business of the magnitude of the assessee- company to fix in which particular year a particular plant which was obsolete became non-existent, or in which particular year the company became aware of the non- existence of a particular plant. The Tribunal has, in its order, rightly stressed the method of accounting followed by the assessee-company

M/S. SEEMA HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 67/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Seema Holding Pvt. Ltd. I.T.O. Ward-15(2), Kolkata Vs [Now, Acit, Central Circle-1, 89, Muktaram Babu Street Guwahati] Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs5209H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

carried out through listed brokers, then the conclusion of the authorities below that the said loss from sale of shares was bogus and not genuine is unverified and without any substantive corroborative material. The ld. A/R submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), upholding the action of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as it has failed