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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

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

74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64,48,50,444/-. Thus the Department was not having complete list even for confronting any of the assessees. He pointed out that though no specific disclosure was made even in the statement under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SHILLONG, SHILLONG vs. M/S. DHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

capital in a year. Valid notices u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued. Various details were called for by the ld. AO, which the assessee has filed. Income assessed at Rs.4,84,36,311/- after making following disallowances :- Returned Income : Rs.1,21,98,600 ADD: Disallowance u/s 40(b)(v) [paras 3] Rs. 66,43,474 Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 153A of the Act for the AY 2017-18, AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, shall be treated as the Returns of Income filed u/s 139(1). (ii) That, the Audit Reports in Form-10CCB [as referred u/s Section 80-IA(7) of the Act] which were furnished by the Assessee within the time limit as given