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)

133 (6) of the Act to Ms. JenitaWallang on 10.11.2015 on her office address. Ms. Jenita Wallang replied AO on 30.11.2015 along with her account statement ( SBI, Amerigog: A/c No.10072685349) for 1st March, 2013 to 31st March 2013 and confirmation of accounts also. The assessing officer also took the statement under section 131 of the Act. Taking into account

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

133(6). d) It is highly implausible that an unknown person had made substantial investment in a private limited company. e) The Appellant adopted a prevaricating and non-co-operative attitude before the learned AO. f) The Assessee failed to produced the shareholders before the Assessing Officer for examination. Submission: 1. The Hon'ble CIT failed to appreciate the fact

SHRI ABHIJIT RABHA,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

133(6)/131 to also examine the edifice, justification and bonafides of source as well as nature of such cash deposits in other Page 2 of 12 I.T.A. Nos.: 162 & 163/GTY/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Abhijit Rabha. years also to which recourse can be made under section

SHRI ABHIJIT RABHA,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-BONGAIGAON, BONGAIGAON

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

133(6)/131 to also examine the edifice, justification and bonafides of source as well as nature of such cash deposits in other Page 2 of 12 I.T.A. Nos.: 162 & 163/GTY/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Sri Abhijit Rabha. years also to which recourse can be made under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under Section 133 (6

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. SATYAM ISPAT (NORTH EAST) LIMITED, BANDERDEWA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2011-

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68 of the Act. Fortunately, for the assessee, CIT(A) has done an elaborate factual exercise, took into consideration, the creditworthiness of the 13 companies the details of which were furnished by the assessee. More importantly, the CIT noted that all these companies responded to the notices issued under Section 133 (6

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement

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

133(6) of the Act alongwith detailed documentary evidences in support thereof. They also offered to appear personally before the Ld. A.O for confirmation of the impugned transactions. However, for reasons best known to the Ld. A.O, the said persons were never summoned by the Ld. A.O. 3.11 The Ld. A.O. has also commented on the alleged abnormal price movement