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

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

2. The assessee is registered with VAT Department and the sales have been accepted by the VAT Department as per VAT Returns. 3. The turnover as per audited financial statement is Rs. 92,88,33,383/- and the said turnover has been accepted by the order of DC, VAT dated 25.01.2020. 4. The books of accounts have been accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

15,02,899/- respectively holding as bogus. 7. Before us, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue submits that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from these two parties and filed additional evidences before Ld. CIT(A) however, Ld. CIT(A) without waiting for the Remand Report from

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

2 | P a g e the said enhancement was grounded on the assessee's failure to substantiate the direct and indirect expenses as well as the purchases claimed by it in the Trading and P&L Account prepared for the year. 7. That, the appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above

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.

Purchase Deeds and the mode of payment of cost of improvements. 8. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act, where one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against his bill raised for the cost of improvement