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

M/S. BALAJI ENTERPRISE,GUWAHATI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143

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)

68 to section 69D of the Act. In the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that deposits of Rs.91,48,326/- in bank account No. 10 Shri Abdul Hamid & Shri Abdul Hannan ITA Nos.46 & 47/Gau/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 21956697434, were business receipts. The relevant para of the assessment order is reproduced below

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)

68 to section 69D of the Act. In the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that deposits of Rs.91,48,326/- in bank account No. 10 Shri Abdul Hamid & Shri Abdul Hannan ITA Nos.46 & 47/Gau/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 21956697434, were business receipts. The relevant para of the assessment order is reproduced below

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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

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

143(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