SH.SANJAY RAWAT,,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

250 (SC). 11. Ld.AR stated that ld. PCIT while granting the approval u/s 151 has held that the entries found noted in the loose paper No.184 and 186 found from the possession of Shri Amit Sharma related to the assessee and given his approval for re-opening the case of the assessee. However, while filing the report under Rule

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CRICLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

250 (SC). 11. Ld.AR stated that ld. PCIT while granting the approval u/s 151 has held that the entries found noted in the loose paper No.184 and 186 found from the possession of Shri Amit Sharma related to the assessee and given his approval for re-opening the case of the assessee. However, while filing the report under Rule

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 was passed without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction and passing the impugned order u/s 263, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a resident individual and filed his return of income on 17.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.97,40,460/. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 dated\n24.10.2024 erred in not deleting the impugned addition amounting to Rs\n54,94,750 which impugned addition is \"arbitrarily\" made/sustained as\napparently there is no valid legal justification/basis for the same.”\n5. Ground of appeal No.(A) raised by the assessee is general in\nnature, needs no separate adjudication hence, dismissed.\n6. Ground of appeal

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) were deemed non-est and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "250

DARIYAV SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

250/- and consequently claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act in view of the fact that the assessee had purchased another agricultural land for Rs.80 lacs. The nil capital gain reported by the assessee was accepted by the Ld. A.O. in the re-assessment and concluded u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15/03/2016. This assessment was sought

SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. PRCIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

250/- and consequently claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act in view of the fact that the assessee had purchased another agricultural land for Rs.80 lacs. The nil capital gain reported by the assessee was accepted by the Ld. A.O. in the re-assessment and concluded u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15/03/2016. This assessment was sought

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the notice u/s 148 and subsequent notices were not served on the assessee at the correct address or email ID. Consequently, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "69A", "250

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/-.

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 06.03.2024 passed u/s 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was re- opened based on the documents found and seized, during the course of search carried

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

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

BHOPAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,SRINAGAR GARHWAL vs. ITO SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR GARHWAL

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 02.09.2021 passed u/s 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 and penalty u/s 270A of the Act respectively. 2. Since both the appeals are related to one assessee and against the additions made in reassessment order and consequent levy of penalty

BHOPAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR GARHWAL

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 02.09.2021 passed u/s 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 and penalty u/s 270A of the Act respectively. 2. Since both the appeals are related to one assessee and against the additions made in reassessment order and consequent levy of penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"] arising from\nthe assessment order dated 25.01.2024 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act\npertaining to assessment year 2022-23.\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed her\nreturn of income on 30.09.2022, declaring total income of INR\n49,61,640/-. Subsequently, a search

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act and the remaining two appeals in ITA Nos. 78 & 79/DDN/2024 are filed by the assessee against penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years