ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL,MANPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

143(2) of the Act was issued followed by notices u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaires. In response filed replies from time to time. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, AO completed the assessment vide order dated 15.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein the total income was assessed at INR 54,23,320/-. 3. Against

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

143(3)/144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the AO (Assessing officer) and DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) have grossly erred on facts and in law in passing the impugned order and assessing the income

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

143(3), as available at PB page 21 to 22, we find that there is no mention of any firm named as M/s Shri Ganpati 5 IT No.110/DDN/2024 Shri Vibhu Grover vs. PCIT Enterprises with whom alleged transactions of Rs.6.00 lacs is stated to be made by the assessee of bogus accommodation entry. The AO in his wisdom made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

section 145(3) considering that no books of account and bills or vouchers were furnished. The AO further held that since the assessee did not produce any books of account, such as stock register, purchase and sale book, cash book, bills or vouchers related to the expenses, purchase and sale, the net loss declared by the assessee

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

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

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 24.02.2011. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer disallowed material cost of Rs.2,06,40,432/- and expenses of Rs.1,27,48,322/-. In so far as 2 I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2012 material cost is concerned the Assessing Officer disallowed on the ground that total

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

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

143(3) of the Act on 31.01.2019 by making an addition of Rs. 6,55,12,717/- u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.12.2019, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 09.06.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee. As against

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that the assessee and its counsel are placed at two different cities therefore, ITA No. 105 & 106/DDN/2024 the appeal could

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required ITA No. 83 to 85/DDN/2024 no investigation, thus the same be admitted

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required ITA No. 83 to 85/DDN/2024 no investigation, thus the same be admitted

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required ITA No. 83 to 85/DDN/2024 no investigation, thus the same be admitted

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that the assessee and its counsel are placed at two different cities therefore, ITA No. 105 & 106/DDN/2024 the appeal could

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

143(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment order dated 28/12/2022, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 06/02/2025, sustained the partial disallowance of Rs. 3 KomaSinghal 3,00,800/- by partly allowing the Appeal. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 06/02/2025, the Assessee