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)

1. The learned assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There

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)

1. The learned assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There

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)

1. The learned assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There

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)

1. The learned assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There

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)

1. The learned assessing officer has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. 2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) would mandatorily issue. The abatement of assessment and reassessment pending on that date would, in the case of a Section 153A assessment, be a preordained consequence. However, and in light of what has been observed hereinabove, it is apparent that Section 153Cconstructs a subtle and yet significant distinction

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) would mandatorily issue. The abatement of assessment and reassessment pending on that date would, in the case of a Section 153A assessment, be a preordained consequence. However, and in light of what has been observed hereinabove, it is apparent that Section 153Cconstructs a subtle and yet significant distinction

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) would mandatorily issue. The abatement of assessment and reassessment pending on that date would, in the case of a Section 153A assessment, be a preordained consequence. However, and in light of what has been observed hereinabove, it is apparent that Section 153Cconstructs a subtle and yet significant distinction

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

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) would mandatorily issue. The abatement of assessment and reassessment pending on that date would, in the case of a Section 153A assessment, be a preordained consequence. However, and in light of what has been observed hereinabove, it is apparent that Section 153Cconstructs a subtle and yet significant distinction

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

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

132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A(1) would mandatorily issue. The abatement of assessment and reassessment pending on that date would, in the case of a Section 153A assessment, be a preordained consequence. However, and in light of what has been observed hereinabove, it is apparent that Section 153Cconstructs a subtle and yet significant distinction

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.”

132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of an entry operator, Shri Surendra Kumar Jain on 14.09.2010 and it was found that accommodation entry amounting to Rs.2,35,00,000/- was provided to the assessee during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has received share application

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

1, the Revenue has raised the issue of contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’). 3.1 Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in case of M/s. Prateek

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

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

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Rajesh Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, B-4, New Sabzi Mandi, Vikash Central Circle, Nagar, Distti. Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpa7592E Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

1 is that whether the additional income offered by the assessee during the course of search would have to be construed as unexplained income u/s 69A so as to liable to taxed @60% as prescribed in section 115BBE of the Act. 8. It is admitted fact that the assessee had indeed surrendered Rs. 74,96,096/- as his regular

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

section 145 ignoring the sanctity of finalising and auditing the books at the end of the year. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that failure to reject the books of accounts u/s 145 is a curable defect u/s 2928.” 2. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds

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)

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 did not offer surrendered income. The assessee in return of income declared total taxable of Rs.2,68

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)

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 did not offer surrendered income. The assessee in return of income declared total taxable of Rs.2,68