ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. WINNER DEALTRADE (P) LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

3), which was completed on 31.03.2015 and all the documents and evidences in support of the alleged share subscribers proving their identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as envisaged under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, stood filed and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. LINKSTAR PROMOTERS (P) LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

3), which was completed on 31.03.2015 and all the documents and evidences in support of the alleged share subscribers proving their identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as envisaged under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, stood filed and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer was satisfied

SHRI ABDUL HANNAN,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TINSUKIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

3,65,933/- as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to understand whether the provisions of section 115BBE are applicable to the assessee or not, let us first go through the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, which reads as follows: “15BBE. Tax on income referred to in section

SHRI ABDUL HAMID,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TINSUKIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

3,65,933/- as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to understand whether the provisions of section 115BBE are applicable to the assessee or not, let us first go through the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, which reads as follows: “15BBE. Tax on income referred to in section

ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 in this case is highly irregular and against the provisions of law. The Assessment Order may therefore be struck down as illegal. Ground 3: For that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the claim for deduction raised before her in regard to liability of 5,11,68,800/- which

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

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

10) That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future. Grounds of appeal by Revenue:- (1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition to the t4une of Rs.66,40,68,972/- under the head of cost of material consumed by not taking considering

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

10) That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds in future. Grounds of appeal by Revenue:- (1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred by deleting the addition to the t4une of Rs.66,40,68,972/- under the head of cost of material consumed by not taking considering

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption

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

3). Thus, the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years in all the 16 cases herein were non-pending/completed and thus, stood unabated for the purpose of section 153A of the Act. 9. In the original returns, the assessees have claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The details of quantum of exemption