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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

68 was warranted in respect of capital gains claimed on shares where the transactions were affected through recognized stock exchange via banking channels and the Assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidences in support the same which had remained uncontroverted by the Department. (xii) That based on the above, it was submitted that LTCG of Rs. 4,76,18,448.41 could

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

ii) Smt. Jayati Bhattachargee Debnath. The assessee company had shown gross turnover from its business at Rs. 31,59,75,687/- and the object of the company is trading of various FMCG products and insurance products and after meeting various expenditure incidental to its business, the net profit has been disclosed at Rs. 1,06,48,066/- which is worked

M/S. RATNA KUBER GEMS & JEWELLERY,GUWAHATI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),I/C. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals in I

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

68,795/- iii) Para 4.8 Rs. 1,04,35,067/- Rs. 1,09,03,857/-.” I.T.A. No.: 171/GTY/2019 “A) For that CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions made by the learned A.O.- (i) Para 4.2 (Asstt. Order) Rs. 1,22,775/- (ii) Para 4.5 (Asstt. Order) Rs. 15,376/- (iii) Para 5 (Asstt. Order

M/S. RATNA KUBER TRADERS JEWELLERY,HOJAI vs. TOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD), I/C. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals in I

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

68,795/- iii) Para 4.8 Rs. 1,04,35,067/- Rs. 1,09,03,857/-.” I.T.A. No.: 171/GTY/2019 “A) For that CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions made by the learned A.O.- (i) Para 4.2 (Asstt. Order) Rs. 1,22,775/- (ii) Para 4.5 (Asstt. Order) Rs. 15,376/- (iii) Para 5 (Asstt. Order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH vs. SANTOSH BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 104/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 34/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Santosh Bamalwa Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh Vs Ground Floor Mahalaya Road C/O A.K. Varma Dibrugarh - 786001 [Pan: Aedpb9900P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central, North-East Region, Guwahati (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/07/2023, Passed U/S

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee got relief on the ground that no incriminating material were found during the course of search pertaining to the alleged transaction giving rise to alleged long term capital gain and since the year under consideration is Assessment Year 2012-13 and the time limit