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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

price movement in the shares of TwentyFirst Century (India) Ltd. The same was duly explained by the Assessees before the Ld. CIT(A) with the aid of analysis of price movement of other shares in the following words: “2. The A.O. had also referred to his examination of price movement in the shares of Twenty First Century (India

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

43,06,300/- (ii) -do- 271010100055648 Rs. 3,60,27,809/- (iii) HDFC Ltd., Silchar 10631000001479 Rs.44,34,917/- 2.2 The aggregate deposits in the aforesaid bank accounts stood at Rs.5,47,69,026/-. When confronted by the Assessing Officer, the appellant admitted vide his letter dated 04-12-2012, that all the three bank accounts were undisclosed, though

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

43,06,300/- (ii) -do- 271010100055648 Rs. 3,60,27,809/- (iii) HDFC Ltd., Silchar 10631000001479 Rs.44,34,917/- 2.2 The aggregate deposits in the aforesaid bank accounts stood at Rs.5,47,69,026/-. When confronted by the Assessing Officer, the appellant admitted vide his letter dated 04-12-2012, that all the three bank accounts were undisclosed, though

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

transferred either to Aarda Foundation or the appellant Mr. Manoj Anand on the same day. This also shows the suspicious nature of activity being carried out by M/s Urch Trading Pvt. Ltd. without any business rationale. Considering the above facts of the case and in law, I fully concur with the findings given by the AO in the assessment order

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

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

43-44) nowhere provide that the money will be forfeited if plan conditions were not I.T.A. No.: 358/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Accrecent Way Marketing Private Limited. fulfilled. The CIT(A) was wrong to hold that "On account of non- performance by the customer or below performance, the initial deposits have been forfeited." (Page 37 of CIT(A)'s Order