MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 40A (3) of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has contended that disallowance made and upheld is without jurisdiction since it is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that that notice issued u/s 153A

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 40A (3) of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has contended that disallowance made and upheld is without jurisdiction since it is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that that notice issued u/s 153A

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 40A (3) of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has contended that disallowance made and upheld is without jurisdiction since it is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that that notice issued u/s 153A

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 40A (3) of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has contended that disallowance made and upheld is without jurisdiction since it is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that that notice issued u/s 153A

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 40A (3) of the Act. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) has contended that disallowance made and upheld is without jurisdiction since it is not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search on the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that that notice issued u/s 153A

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

SHRUTI BUILDCON P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year 2012-13

153A of the Act as well. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that since the addition made by the AO is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search, therefore, the assessment made under section 153A/143(3) by making the addition is not in accordance with law. 9. Referring to page

SANJEEV JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of interest amount paid on housing loan and 1 claimed as a deduction under section 24 (b) of The Income Tax Act 1961 made by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun made by order under section 153A

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

153A of the Act are aimed at making de novo assessments and are not akin to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act to charge to tax only income escaping assessment in the original proceedings. You may therefore issue the refund claimed.” 3. The said explanation given by the assessee was not been found to be acceptable on the ground

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

153A of the Act were initiated. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, while examining the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 of the assessee, noticed that the share capital, which stood at the beginning of the year at Rs.5,00,000/-, has increased to Rs.8,46,000/-. Whereas, in the reserves and surplus, the assessee has shown receipt

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

153A of the Act were initiated. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, while examining the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 of the assessee, noticed that the share capital, which stood at the beginning of the year at Rs.5,00,000/-, has increased to Rs.8,46,000/-. Whereas, in the reserves and surplus, the assessee has shown receipt

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

disallowance of set off of losses to the file of AO with the direction to determine the nature of losses on the basis of documentary evidence and in view of amended section 43(5) of the Act should allow the set off of losses incurred by the assessee from futures and options segment of stock market, if they are eligible

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

disallowance of set off of losses to the file of AO with the direction to determine the nature of losses on the basis of documentary evidence and in view of amended section 43(5) of the Act should allow the set off of losses incurred by the assessee from futures and options segment of stock market, if they are eligible