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

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). 2

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). 2

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68

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

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.4,76,18,448/- (i.e., the impugned addition in each case) under section 68