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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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

e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search u/s 132 of the Act at his business and residential premises on 20.11.2017, no incriminating document relating to share transactions had been found/seized, which strongly indicated that he was not involved in any bogus transactions as alleged. Consequently, the LTCG derived by him was not bogus

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).

68 of the Act. Subsequently, proceeding w/s.153A of the Act was initiated against the assessee and notices 153A of the Act were issued and served on the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16. Copies enclosed at pg 1-6 of the Additional P/b. At the juncture, would be of relevance to quote secund proviso to sec. 153A

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, DIBRUGARH. vs. OIL INDIA LTD., DIBRUGARH

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. G.M.Knitting Industries (P) Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Axis Computers (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 178 Taxman 143 (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. AKS Alloys