K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed by ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 CHENNAI, Office of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal is against the law and on facts of the case. 2. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer

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

6. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Revenue is with respect to deletion of disallowance of INR 33,24,865/- towards purchases made from Two parties namely, M/s. Raj Lubricants and M/s. Paras Enterprises of INR 18,21,966/- and INR 15,02,899/- respectively holding as bogus. 7. Before us, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue submits that