SHRI RAMESH BATTA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in both the cases are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue in both the cases are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Ramesh Batta Central Circle, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Vs. Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ramesh Batta Dy. Cit, 81/210, Kaulagarh Central Circle, Vs. Road, Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Shri Ramesh Batta, Central Circle, As Agent Of Smt. Kavita Vs. Dehradun. Ahuja, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SH. RAMESH BATTA AS AGENT OF SMT. KAVITA AHUJA, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in both the cases are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue in both the cases are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Ramesh Batta Central Circle, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Vs. Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ramesh Batta Dy. Cit, 81/210, Kaulagarh Central Circle, Vs. Road, Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Shri Ramesh Batta, Central Circle, As Agent Of Smt. Kavita Vs. Dehradun. Ahuja, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

RAJU VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." Raju Verma vs. DCIT 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, CROSS ROAD vs. RAJU VERMA, CURZON ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner) under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11 A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, CROSS ROAD vs. RAJU VERMA, CURZON ROAD, DALANWALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner) under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11 A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

36,44,523/-. The ld AO observed that since the original return was filed electronically, the revised return should also be filed electronically within the time permitted u/s 139(5) of the Act. The time limit u/s 139(5) of the Act expired on 31.03.2016, hence, the AO treated the manual revised return filed on 29.11.2016 as non est. Later

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were\ninitiated in the case of assessee and re-assessment order was passed\nu/s 147 on 25.01.2024, making an addition of INR 40,91,770/- to the\nassessee's total return income.\n3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)\nwho vide order dated 30.01.2025, partly allowed the appeal of the\nassessee

GANESH NEGI,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us:-

36. This appeal was filed by the assessee on 08.05.2017. The first notice of hearing was issued on 10.11.2021, on which date, the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee. Later on, the matter was listed for hearing on 20.01.2022, 24.05.2022, 26.08.2022, 16.10.2022, 27.04.2023 and on 20.06.2023, i.e., today. On none of these occasions, the assessee was present

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past