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

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

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

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that during the search conducted at the premises of the assessee on 20.09.2019, certain documents were found and seized. These documents were inventoried as SD ABCI 03, page 53, which according to him contains ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.03.2022. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that during the search conducted at the premises of the assessee on 20.09.2019, certain documents were found and seized. These documents were inventoried as SD ABCI 03, page 53, which according to him contains ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited

SHRI PRABHUDAYAL BERIWAL,JYOTINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DIBRUGARH

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act. 1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. For that the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax erred in law and fact of the case while making addition u/s 68 for unsecured loan of Rs 1,11,00,000 taken from Premsagar Commercial Private Limited 2. For that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), GUWAHATI vs. PRAG RAJ SINGLA, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

11. We note that the irrelevant material, referred to and which influenced the decision of the AO, as recorded by the A.O. in his assessment order, was as follows: (a) An alleged wrong bank statement allegedly submitted by the loan creditoralong-with her reply to requisition under Section 133(6), and (b) The fact that cash, in the account

AMPLEX PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGARTALA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

11 M/s Amplex Projects Private Limited The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lovely Exports P. Ltd reported in [299 ITR 268] held that "In the case of a company the following are the propositions of law under section. 68. The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section

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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance 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

11, the assessee has submitted that no search was carried out under section 132(1). The Panchnama of the Bamalwa Group are available at pages no. 1 to 39 of the paper book No. 17 filed in the case of Vishal Bamalwa and, therefore, no order under section 153A ought to have been passed. The cognizance under section