SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

natural justice; and (b) first disposing off the legal objections by passing a separate speaking order, is illegal and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in holding that the re-assessment order dated 28.12.2018, passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KAMAL JEWELLERS, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

purchases to be bogus as well. In the present case, no such enquiries have been done. To provide adequate natural justice

AJAY GARG,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchases. It is also seen that\nassessee in reply to the said notice had filed a detailed reply on 24th\nMarch, 2020 which was sent through email to the AO, however, such reply\nwas not considered and the order was passed u/s 148A(d) recording the\nsatisfaction that it is a fit case for issue of notice

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

justice. 4. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred in not adjudicating the grounds of objections in which all the additions on merits have been challenged. 5. That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in not following the directions of DRP in letter and spirit. 6. That the AO has grossly erred in making disallowance

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

bogus liabilities, holding that AO has not really conducted any investigation into genuineness of the purchases, without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to prove identity of the persons and genuineness of the transactions of liabilities shown in its books as on 31.03.2012 on account of Sr. Creditors. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

bogus liabilities, holding that AO has not really conducted any investigation into genuineness of the purchases, without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to prove identity of the persons and genuineness of the transactions of liabilities shown in its books as on 31.03.2012 on account of Sr. Creditors. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

M/S A-ONE ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S A-One Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, 135/61 East Patel Nagar, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Vs. Pan-Aanfa5222D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short], Dated 25.08.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Dehradun/10654/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The Act’ In Short) Dated 16.12.2029 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,08,939/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 16.12.2019 At A Total Income Of Rs.51,79,869/- By Making Additions Of Rs.48,49,500/- U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs.21,430/- U/S 41(1) Of The Act. A-One Enterprises Vs. Ito 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Partly Allowed The Appeal By Allowing The Additions Of Rs.4,49,500/- After Verification By The Ao & Confirmed The Remaining Additions Of Rs. 44.00 Lacs Made U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs. 21,430/- Towards Bogus Liability.

natural justice. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals failed to appreciate that the partner had duly explained the sources of addition to capital amounting to 44,00,000 through (i) loan from his wife, (ii) past savings from pension income, and (iii) loan received back from M/s Allied Marketing, all supported by PAN, ITR, confirmation letters