AJAY GARG,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "144B", "139(1)", "132(4)", "250", "148", "148A", "151", "133(6)", "269SS", "269T", "135A" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WORD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148A(d) and/or issuance of notice Name: Rajat Bansal under section 148 of the Income-tax Designation :PCCIT, Act, 1961? Delhi Date- 20.03.2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148A(d) and/or issuance of notice Name: Rajat Bansal under section 148 of the Income-tax Designation :PCCIT, Act, 1961? Delhi Date- 20.03.2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WORD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

148A(d) and/or issuance of notice Name: Rajat Bansal under section 148 of the Income-tax Designation :PCCIT, Act, 1961? Delhi Date- 20.03.2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved

ACHARYA BALKRISHNA,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions as envisaged under the Act, being barred by limitation as per first proviso to section 149 of the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the fact that the proceedings initiated under section 148A

NAMITA AGRAWAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, INCOME TAX OFFICE ,DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Namita Agrawal, Vs Dcit, 36/1, E C Road, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand-248001 Dehradun Pan-Afspa0668P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. & Shri Naman Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order

148A(d) Designation :PCCIT, Delhi and/or issuance of notice Date-20.03.2023 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved" by the Principal

SWAMI DARSHANAND INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalswami Darshanand Institute Of Income Tax Officer, Management & Technology, Ward-1(3)(1), Gurukul Mahavidyalaya, Vs. Haridwar. P.O. Gurukul Kangi, Jwalpur, Haridwar-249407. Pan:Aalas6789G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shalil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Salies Gupta, Adv. & Shri Uma Shankar, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.05.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Engaged In Imparting Education. The Ao Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.93,10,000/- In The Saving Bank Account Maintained With A Central Bank Of India Which Is Not Declared & Thus Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, Submissions Were Made By The Assessee Wherein It Is Claimed That This Account Pertained To Other Society & All The Deposits Are Duly

reassessment proceedings were without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions as envisaged under the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the fact that the proceedings initiated under section 148A