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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2: For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 when the pre-conditions for such addition did not exist in the present case. 1. Non-examination of Books of Accounts: • Your honours, the basic condition of invoking Section 68 is an entry

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)

2), it has been detected that the assessee maintains the following two accounts: However, it is seen from the details collected that the assessee didn’t disclose the transactions reflected in the bank account no. 2195697434 maintained in the bank CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. The assessee was asked vide this office letter dated 08/12/2016 to explain as to why thecash

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)

2), it has been detected that the assessee maintains the following two accounts: However, it is seen from the details collected that the assessee didn’t disclose the transactions reflected in the bank account no. 2195697434 maintained in the bank CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. The assessee was asked vide this office letter dated 08/12/2016 to explain as to why thecash

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

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. 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 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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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