ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

250(6) because the Assessing officer has issued Notice u/s 139(9) on 02/05/2016 and further issued reminder on 08/06/2016. The Assessee has complied and filed ITR u/s 139(9) on 10/06/2016 wherein the exemption u/s 10(23(C) (vi) had been claimed and the Assessing officer has rejected this Return and processed Original return without providing any opportunity

M/S UJVN LIMITED ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTARAKHAND

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.05.2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2024-25. 2. First we take the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA NO. 126/DDN/2025 for AY 2017-18. ITA No.126/DDN/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 3. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it is seen

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SUBHASH ROAD vs. UJVN LIMITED, GMS ROAD

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.05.2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2024-25. 2. First we take the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA NO. 126/DDN/2025 for AY 2017-18. ITA No.126/DDN/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 3. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it is seen

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

250(2) of the Act, has decided the issue by verifying the documents filed by the assessee, therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue deserves to be upheld. 9. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order