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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 68 in this case is highly irregular and against the provisions of law. The Assessment Order may therefore be struck down as illegal. Ground 3: For that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the claim for deduction raised before her in regard to liability of 5,11,68,800/- which

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. For that

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)

5 Shri Abdul Hamid & Shri Abdul Hannan ITA Nos.46 & 47/Gau/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 tax the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,65,933/- as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. The ld assessing officer had worked out undisclosed business turnover to the tune of Rs. 91,48,326/-but he applied a very low rate of profit

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)

5 Shri Abdul Hamid & Shri Abdul Hannan ITA Nos.46 & 47/Gau/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 tax the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,65,933/- as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. The ld assessing officer had worked out undisclosed business turnover to the tune of Rs. 91,48,326/-but he applied a very low rate of profit

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded

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 of the Income Tax Act on account unexplained cash credits received. 3. Whether a fact emanating from the statement recorded