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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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

1) which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section which could show whether any notice under section 143(2) was issued for was issued for selecting them for scrutiny selecting them for scrutiny assessments or not. Such details have been put by the assessments or not. Such details have

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).

1) that the three essential tests laid down by the courts, namely, the genuineness of the transactions, identity and the capacity of the investors of the share application money along with the premium, had all been examined by the Appellate Tribunal and on facts found satisfied. If the Department took the view that the amount of share application money

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68. • Explanation of nature and source of the Share Application money was never asked for during the course of the assessment. • During the assessment proceedings Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 30.10.2012 seeking details/explanations on 17 points. During the course of hearing, no further details were ever called for except the following: a. Hearing Dated 30.11.2012: Books

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)

1. For that the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. PCIT erred in considering that undisclosed business income of Rs. 3,65,933/- assessed