ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,009/- instead of returned loss of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- (ii) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in EPF and ECGI under section 36

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36,55,359/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 05.03.2013. 9 Reena Verma However, the same was quashed on technical reason by the Ld. CIT(A). Later, based on the tangible material available on the record, the AO reopened the case. 6. The original assessment order was held void ab-initio

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

36(1)(iii) without appreciating the facts brought on record for the instant year. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit inspite of the facts that the assessee did not fully discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

36(1)(iii) without appreciating the facts brought on record for the instant year. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit inspite of the facts that the assessee did not fully discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset

LOKESH KUMAR, PROP.,KOTDWAR vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Lokesh Kumar, Prop. Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ramesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Kotdwar. Durgapuri, Kotdwar. Pan: Ajrpk2548R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated

36,836/-. Assessee’s case was picked up for scrutiny and while completing the assessment vide order dated 28.02.2014, the Assessing Officer made two additions. The first one is addition of Rs.38,87,347/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68

RAJ BALA MITTAL,HARDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, HARDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him For Examination

36,750/-. However, the affidavit and the income tax return acknowledgment were placed for the first time by the assessee before this Tribunal. Since these evidences are crucial for adjudication of the issue in dispute before us, the same are hereby admitted and taken on record. In any case, the assessee had duly discharged her initial onus of providing

PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Ward 1(4) (1), Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, 249201, Uttarakhand Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Pan: Aldpd9616P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 Order

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 36,05,530/- on account of suppression of sale receipts u/s 28 of the Act and also made addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s 68

CHARANJEET LAL ARORA,HARIDWAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(3) 1 HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 211/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Sh. Charanjeet Lal Arora Vs Acit M/S Amit Agencies, Village Sarai, Circe (1)(3)(1) Near Sabji Mandi, Jwalapur, Haridwar Haridwar-249407, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Aanpa9280F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Advs Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Surat (‘Ld.

36,87,760/-, Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny proceedings on 16/12/2019 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short)by making an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit u/s. 68

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68 . The ld . CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld . AO/TPO. 69 . After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee

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)

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic Raju Verma vs. DCIT formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed

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

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect on appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have

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

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect on appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SHRI RAMESH BATTA, 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)

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have

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)

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have

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)

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have

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)

Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by the authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- "10. We have

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

36. Coming to the appeal of the assessee, ground number 1 is with respect to the initiation of reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

36. Coming to the appeal of the assessee, ground number 1 is with respect to the initiation of reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical