SH.SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DEHRADUN, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witness(s)/evidences were

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witness(s)/evidences were

SH. SURINDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witness(s)/evidences were

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witness(s)/evidences were

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross examine the witness(s)/evidences were

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SHRI SACHIN UPADHAYA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

search and seizure operation, the Assessing Officer noticed that it contains details of receipts and payments made in financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07, out of which an amount of Rs.38,08,500/- pertains to the impugned assessment year. Since, the amount was received by the assessee, he called upon the assessee to explain the nature of transaction

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Assessing Officer has made various additions based on the material found and seized during the search and seizure action and received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person. The Assessing Officer has made the addition on various accounts in para 3 to 6 as under : “3. Vide referred above show cause dated

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

68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such

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

68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such

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

68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such

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

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 engaged in real estate business. Pursuant to a search and seizure

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 engaged in real estate business. Pursuant to a search and seizure

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such

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

search and seizure can be used subject to the value to be attached to it or its admissibility in accordance with the law relating to the evidence. Thus, following the same logic, we are of the considered view that the information gathered prior to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act can be used even

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. GOLDEN MANOR, DEHRADUN

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.103 &104/देहरादून/2019(िन.व. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

search and seizure operation one of the partners Shri A N Ahuja in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) made a disclosure of Rs.5 crores for AY 2015-16 and Rs.9 crores for AY 2016-17. However, in return of income the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. GOLDEN MANOR, DEHRADUN

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.103 &104/देहरादून/2019(िन.व. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

search and seizure operation one of the partners Shri A N Ahuja in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) made a disclosure of Rs.5 crores for AY 2015-16 and Rs.9 crores for AY 2016-17. However, in return of income the assessee

M/S. REGALLIA JEWELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Regallia Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 162, Basement Hardyan Central Circle, Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Dehradun Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr9572R Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Narendra S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was initiated in the business premises of the Assessee on 14.03.2012 and in the cases of M/s. Punjab Jewellers group. During the course of search, the stocks of jewellery was valued by the department‟s valuer at Rs. 3,34,79,179/- as on the date of search. This was compared with