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

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

section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

Section 68 in respect of unsecured loans have not been obtained during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

68 of the Act as it would tantamount to double taxation of same income. The Assessing Officer could only reject claim u/s 80HHC of the Act". 7.7. It has also been held by Courts that contraventions of notification issued by RBI would not attract provisions of section

ITO, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UNISON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs Unison Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(5), C/O Virendra Kalra & Co., Cas, 13A, Subhash Road, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu7259C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.25/Ddn/2017 For Ay 2007-08 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun In Appeal No.584/Cit(A)/Ddn/2015-16 Dated 28.10.2016 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.03.2016 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Dehradun (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Dehradun Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Quashing The Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Rendering The Entire Proceedings As Void-Ab-Initio. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Made In The Hands Of The Company On Account Of Share Application Money Which Had Alrightly Been Assessed As Unaccounted Income Of The Assessee Company U/S 68 Of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Be Set-A-Side Being Erroneous In Law & On Facts & That Of Ao May Be Restored.”

section 68 of the Act in the instant case. 3 6. We find the ld.CIT(A) had quashed the reassessment

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KAMAL JEWELLERS, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

68 and invoking the provision of Section 115BBE is concerned, the order of the AO and the detailed submissions of the assessee

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

section 68 of the Act, iii. Taxability of Rs.40,09,123/- under section 40A(3) of the Act iv. Chargeability

MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,DEHRADUN vs. DY.CIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: the date of agreement. In his reply AR of the assessee submitted that only Rs.14,00,415/- was received during the year and the assessee has inadvertently forgot to include this amount in its income. So, this may be considered as income from transfer of the above property. He furnished receipt of the above amount which is place on record. MDDA

68,000/-; value of the property for stamp purposes, is chargeable to tax under section 43CAof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

D BALI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LTD.,KASHIPUR (U.S.NAGAR) vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KASHIPUR, KASHIPUR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) D Bali Infrastructure & Vs. Dcit, Developers Ltd., Circle-2, Kashra No. 151, Apna Ghar Kashipur Village-Gangapur, Kundeshwari Road, Kashipur, Dist. Utham Singh Nagar-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcd3599D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2025

section 68 of the Act in the sum of Rs 1,80,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant

SUNIL SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him From Time To Time

section 68 of the Act itself would not come into operation. On this limited count itself, the addition made u/s 68

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating\nthe fact that the assessee was failed to explain the source of cash deposit\nto the satisfaction of the AO as laid down in section

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts

VEDVATI SINGH ,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC- HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

sections": [ "143(3)", "153A", "142(2A)", "68", "69", "132", "147", "148" ], "issues": "Whether assessment under Section 153A for unabated years

AJAY KUMAR MAMGAIN,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 148 of the income tax act as well as confirmation of addition u/s 68 of Rs 11 lakhs. 2. Brief