SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

D.R. Date of hearing: 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 31.07.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. At the outset, Learned AR submitted that the issues involved in all the appeals

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

D.R. Date of hearing: 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 31.07.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. At the outset, Learned AR submitted that the issues involved in all the appeals

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

D.R. Date of hearing: 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 31.07.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. At the outset, Learned AR submitted that the issues involved in all the appeals

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

D.R. Date of hearing: 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2022 ORDER PER BENCH : All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 31.07.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. At the outset, Learned AR submitted that the issues involved in all the appeals

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

13. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the additional income was offered on account of discrepancy in the stock physically found at the time of survey and as per books of accounts. The said stock is forming part of the business of the assessee

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 5363/Del/2017 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Dehradun, [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No.187/CIT(A)/DDN/2015-16 dated 29.05.2017 against the order of assessment passed