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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

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 132(1) of the Income

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

RAMKY ECI JV,TELANGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred to ECI’s account irrespective of profit/loss. ECI agreed through this internal agreement to observe, perform and comply with the provisions of the contract agreement which shall employ the required technical and administrative personnel and labour force as well Ramky ECI JV, AY: 2018-19 & 2019-20 as all other adequate resources for completing the work according

RAMKY ECI JV,TELEGANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, GUWAHATI

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

transferred to ECI’s account irrespective of profit/loss. ECI agreed through this internal agreement to observe, perform and comply with the provisions of the contract agreement which shall employ the required technical and administrative personnel and labour force as well Ramky ECI JV, AY: 2018-19 & 2019-20 as all other adequate resources for completing the work according