DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

153A(1)(b) r/w sec. 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 52,04,810/-. At the time of assessment, the claim of set-off of the losses from the future and option (F&O) at Rs. 41,04,315 was disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

153A(1)(b) r/w sec. 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 52,04,810/-. At the time of assessment, the claim of set-off of the losses from the future and option (F&O) at Rs. 41,04,315 was disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

1, 2 & 3, Revenue has raised the issue of admission of additional evidences by learned first appellate authority in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Having considered rival submissions, we find, though, before the first appellate authority, the assessee did furnish certain additional evidences, however, before admitting them, learned first appellate authority has provided full

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

1, 2 & 3, Revenue has raised the issue of admission of additional evidences by learned first appellate authority in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Having considered rival submissions, we find, though, before the first appellate authority, the assessee did furnish certain additional evidences, however, before admitting them, learned first appellate authority has provided full