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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

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

129 of the impugned order. In this table, ld. 1st Appellate Authority has observed that aggregate long-term capital gain earned by Shri Pramod Kumar Bamalwa and others belonging to the Nemichand Bamalwa & Sons Group were quantified to Rs.97,66,74,038/-, whereas during the course of assessment, bogus capital gain claim has been quantified to Rs.64

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

129 (Kolkata) the following is recorded: “9. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act provides for assessment of income escaping assessment. Such assessment has to be in terms of Section 148, which provides for recording of reasons and issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. This Section, inter alia, provide that before making an assessment, reassessment

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)

section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Whether on facts, Assessing Officer had prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and, thus, validity of impugned reassessment proceedings was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of revenue]” In the case of Reena Jain reported in 174 taxmann.com 849 (Calcutta). The head notes read

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)

section 148 seeking to reopen assessment - Whether on facts, Assessing Officer had prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment and, thus, validity of impugned reassessment proceedings was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of revenue]” In the case of Reena Jain reported in 174 taxmann.com 849 (Calcutta). The head notes read