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/- under section 43CA of the Act. However, the actual receipt offreehold charges of Rs.14,10,001/- instead

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

10% of gross receipts or turnover of Rs. 16,61,28,493 was estimated, which comes to Rs. 1,66,12,849. 7. Findings 7.1. I have considered the submissions and grounds of appeal of the appellant carefully. The assessment order u/s 143(3) has been perused. The details as submitted have been examined. The grounds of appeal

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

10 Reena Verma completed/unabated assessments under sections 147/148 is saved subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under section 147/148 of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of the case. Reopening of the case thus is held valid

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

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE by the AO is not correct. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration all the facts and the circumstances of the case, it appears that cash deposits in bank account represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. No defect in the trading account and the stocks

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 of the Act deserves to be deleted. Sunil Srivastava vs. ITO 9. On the contrary, the assessee tried to furnish the evidences that were available with him to prove that he had procured a contract to supply

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

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

10,000/- on account of alleged\npurchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained\ninvestment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n6. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making\nand confirming addition of Rs.10,66,71,000/- on account of alleged\npurchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged

INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year : 2015-16 Intecsea Asia Pacific N Vs. Acit, International Bhd Taxation, Circle-1, Kpmg Salarpuria Knowledge Dehradun City, Orwell Unit 3, 6Th Floor Sy. No. 83/2, Plot 2, Raidurg, Hyderabad 500081 (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. Further, relying on the provisions of section 44BB of the Act, he submitted that the services or facilities provided to ONGC and Leighton India were in connection with prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils. Accordingly, the amount payable by ONGC and Leighton India to the Company should be covered by the provisions of section

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

68 of Rs 11 lakhs. 2. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 31-3- 2016 declaring an income of ₹ 3 74340/–. Action under section 147 of the income tax act was initiated and the notice under section 148 was issued on 24/3/2017. In response to that

SHRI KAPIL KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Kapil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 10, Lane No. 6B, Ward-1(1)(4), Ashirwad Enclave, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Cespk5488L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

10, Mumbai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1069983695(1), dated 28.10.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative Sh. Rane vehemently argues during the course

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

68,568/- on the assets acquired by the UJVNL and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings asked the assessee to explain why capacity charges, deemed generation charges and capacity index incentive amounting to Rs.45,31,58,363/- should not be added to the total income

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

section 68 of the act. 8.2 Before the first appellate authority, the assessee furnished date wise details of the transaction and submitted that substantial sum of money was withdrawn in cash from his bank account. Further explaining, the assessee submitted that the cash was withdrawn as the assessee was in the process of buying

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 111, DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD vs. M/S SURYANCHAL FURNITECH, BAHADRABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

section 68. 6.1.5 Thus, in view of facts of the case as discussed in para 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 and judicial pronouncement of various tribunals as discussed in para 6.1.4, I am of the view that addition made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO is unwarranted in this case. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2,78,62,397/- made

SIDHARTH BUILDWELL LLP,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, C- 1(2)(1), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansidharth Buildwell Llp Vs. Acit, 1, Darshiningate, Kanwali, Circle 1(2)(1), Kanwali B.O. Dehradun Haripuram, Dehradun Pan: Acufs6966M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Sachev, Ca Revenue By: Sh. A.S.Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Order : 27.02.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.11.2017 Declaring Income At Rs. 95,08,920/- For Assessment Year 2017- 18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reasons “Higher Turnover Reported In Service Tax Return As Compared To Itr, Large Increase In Unsecured Loans During The Year, Real Estate Business

10. Vijay Pal Singh Bisht 76000 3 4. Further, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were also issued to the above said parties to submit confirmations alongwith bank statements and copies of ITR. It is found that some notices were returned back undelivered and also no replies were received from the parties. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued

AMRIT VARSHA UDYOG LTD,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

10,506/- and Rs.53,00,074/-, respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Though a power of attorney has been filed on behalf of the assessee, both the Assessee’s representative and the Assessee remained absent on all the previous occasions. In view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. MAHALAXMI BUILDWELL, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mahalaxmi Buildwell, Ward-1(1)(2), 118, Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Aazfm1835G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mayank Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits to the tune of Rs.3.16 crores; reading as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished the written submission and the following documents: 1. Bank Account Statement 2. Copy of sale deed of the property purchased 3. Balance Sheet of the firm as on 31.03.2015 4. Confirmation Statement

SH. AMIT KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Amit Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhagwati Trading & Ward-1(1)(1), Kiryana Store, Hospital Dehradun Road, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan :Aptpk4213M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahani, Ca Department By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the course of assessment framed on 26.12.2019 are upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assesse’s and the Revenues vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. We make it clear that even the learned Assessing Officer has fairly accepted that the assessee

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

68. The addition of Rs.30,00,000/- is confirmed accordingly.” 6. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the same explanation as was made before the ld. CIT(A) and no evidence was submit to support the claim that the cash was actually received from Shri Madan Lal and there were wrong entries done by the accountant in the books

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

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

68,436 in total, as bogus purchases from Sanjay Jain is appended to this report as Annexure-R1, for necessary action/ intimation. The said list is derived in the following format: - S. No. PAN Name of 2019-20 Total entity 1 AAGCD3470 M/s. 9,79,66,8 9,79,66,80 . Q DEEPAK 01 1 BUILDERS & ENGINEER S INDIA PRIVATE