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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

penny stock companies but this commission was returned back without carrying out any inquiry as per the direction of the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer was re-apprised that he should conduct the inquiry at his own end. The ld. Assessing Officer did not conduct any CO Nos. 6 to 21/GAU/2023 (in ITA Nos. 51 to 66/GAU/2023) inquiry

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

disallowance of long-term capital loss of Rs.52,80,893/-. 3. First issue – The Assessing Officer made the impugned addition observing that the assessee has claimed long-term capital gain on the sale of scrip namely Kappac Pharma Ltd. which was recognised as a penny stock

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. (supra)”. Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited 16. On the strength of above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that nothing was discovered during the course of search about this share application money. Taking the advantage of search, ld. Assessing Officer is reassessing

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. (supra)”. Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited 16. On the strength of above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that nothing was discovered during the course of search about this share application money. Taking the advantage of search, ld. Assessing Officer is reassessing

AGRIM INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. (supra)”. Assessment Years: 2012-2013, 2015-16, 2012-13 Agrim Infraproject Private Limited 16. On the strength of above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that nothing was discovered during the course of search about this share application money. Taking the advantage of search, ld. Assessing Officer is reassessing