M/S. RASAYANA HOTEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2010-11

section 153C of the Act 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeal) is bad in the eyes of law and on facts as the assessment order passed u/s 153C itself is invalid and liable to be quashed as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153C of the Act. The learned AO, however, did not agree to the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to make two separate additions as unexplained investments made by the assessee in land as under: a. Rs. 1 crore representing two cheques payments of Rs. 50 lakhs each to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. b. Rs. 1 crore representing cash payment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153C of the Act. The learned AO, however, did not agree to the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to make two separate additions as unexplained investments made by the assessee in land as under: a. Rs. 1 crore representing two cheques payments of Rs. 50 lakhs each to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. b. Rs. 1 crore representing cash payment

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS ,U.S. NAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, KASHIPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in assessment year 2012-13 and in the latter three assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It also appears

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS,UDHASM SINGH NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KASHIPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in assessment year 2012-13 and in the latter three assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It also appears

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2),, KASHIPUR vs. NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS , U.S. NAGAR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in assessment year 2012-13 and in the latter three assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It also appears

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS ,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, KASHIPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in assessment year 2012-13 and in the latter three assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It also appears

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS ,U.S. NAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, KASHIPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in assessment year 2012-13 and in the latter three assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act, respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It also appears

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C