MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153C action initiated for AYs' 2000-01 to 2003-04would not sustain. It was this position in law as enunciated in that decision which came to be reiterated by our Court in Index Securities. 54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153C action initiated for AYs' 2000-01 to 2003-04would not sustain. It was this position in law as enunciated in that decision which came to be reiterated by our Court in Index Securities. 54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153C action initiated for AYs' 2000-01 to 2003-04would not sustain. It was this position in law as enunciated in that decision which came to be reiterated by our Court in Index Securities. 54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. We find that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Act amounting to Rs 37,75,000/- in respect of amount paid to Smt. Sangeeta Singh for purchase of agricultural land vide agreement to sell cum with possession deed dated 30.07.2009. In Page

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment proceedings is held as invalid and is hereby\nquashed. The cross objections of the assessee taken in ground of appeal\nno.1 to 5 of the assessee C.O. are allowed.”\n16. It is further seen that AO has re-opened the case of the\nassessee for the reason that assessee has received cash loan of INR\n50 Lakhs

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Negi) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehra Dun 3.4 Adjudication of the grounds of appeal requires perusal of bare facts, which are as follows: 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and i. The appellant is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the business of development, purchase and sale

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Negi) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehra Dun 3.4 Adjudication of the grounds of appeal requires perusal of bare facts, which are as follows: 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and i. The appellant is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the business of development, purchase and sale

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. R.B. ENTERPRISES, DEHRADUN

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

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Negi) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehra Dun 3.4 Adjudication of the grounds of appeal requires perusal of bare facts, which are as follows: 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and i. The appellant is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the business of development, purchase and sale

ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL,MANPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

54,23,320/-. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 04.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the appellant is engaged in the business of ‘Rice