ASSAM BIO ETHANOL PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-1(1), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: The Drp Was That The

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) held that the impugned payment was unjustified and proposed a ‘nil’ figure as against the impugned amount showed and claimed by the assessee. The following are the critical findings in the Ld. AO’s order: “3.2.5 On receiving TPO order, order u/s 144C(3) of the Act was passed on 15.12.2023 against which the assessee filed

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of assessment/reassessment proceedings. These time limits are either from the end of the financial year in which the notice for initiation of the proceedings was served or from the end of the assessment year to which the proceedings relate. It is proposed to amend the aforesaid sections, i.e., 153 and 153B

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of assessment/reassessment proceedings. These time limits are either from the end of the financial year in which the notice for initiation of the proceedings was served or from the end of the assessment year to which the proceedings relate. It is proposed to amend the aforesaid sections, i.e., 153 and 153B

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shrimanomohan Das, Jm Greenply Industries Ltd Acit, Circle-1 Madgul Lounge, 5 Th Floor, 23 Aaykar Bhawan, Milan Nagar, Chetiacental Road, Kolkata- Vs. Dibrugarh-786001, Assam 700027, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg7284R Assessee By : Shri Ashok Tulsyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, who after considering the submission of the assessee, held that Corporate Guarantee fees @ 1.22%, 1.69% and 1.27% of the respective loan amounts should be treated as income of the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly made the addition

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

prices of the scripts of very little known companies. 25. While on this issue it would be beneficial to take note of the decision in Yadu Hari Dalmia v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central) (1980) 126 ITR 48 wherein it was held that the whole catena of sections starting from Section 68 have been introduced in the taxing enactment

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section

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

ADDITION 64,48,50,444 10. Keeping in mind the above details, brief facts are that all these assessees are regular income-tax payer. They were filing their returns regularly and they have filed their returns in these assessment years also under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure operation under section