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

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, 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, 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, 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

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

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

68 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\nITA No.210, 62, 63, 74 to76 /DDN/2024\nSurender Kumar Chawla\n9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making\nand confirming addition of Rs35,00,000/- allegedly as unexplained\ninvestment u/s 69 on account of alleged payments made to Randhir Singh,\nRamveer Singh and Ganesh Singh

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