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 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit @ 8% of the annual sale of Rs.1,44,77,740/- as under: “4.12 As per return of income filed by the assessee, a turnover of Rs.1,44,77,740/- has been shown. After claiming various expenses, a net profit of Rs.2,86,150/- has been shown against the turnover

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

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. Page 2 MDDA Sub-section 4 of section 43CA clearly states that

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

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 09.08.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated

VEDVATI SINGH ,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

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

68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 09.08.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated

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

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

68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 09.08.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

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

68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 09.08.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated

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

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

68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 09.08.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated

VEDVATI SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

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

68 cannot be pressed to service or provision of section is not applicable in the absence of books of accounts.” 4. We next note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of all the impugned assessments framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act; dated 09.08.2019, in consequence to the search action herein dated

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both the parties are aggrieved with that order and therefore are in appeal. 61. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5565/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that

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.

14,950/- in A.Y. 2016-17. However, in A.Y. 2017-18, the appellant deposited cash of Rs. 3,08,89,500/- which is a significant rise with no reason. Further, the AO stated that appellant has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. Both parties were not traceable

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