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.”

15,00,000/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reopening as well as the addition on merits. The ld.CIT(A) adjudicated the issue both on assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act as well as on merits. The ld.CIT(A) quashed

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

15. When a search is initiated, the assessee is not required to file his return till such time he receives notice under section 153A of the Act. Once such notice is received, the liability fastens on the assessee to file the return within the reasonable time specified in the relevant notice. This principle has been duly addressed

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegiums comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means,— (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to in sub-section (1) arises as a consequence of the order

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

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

15,48,551.00 48,55,140-00 33,06,589.00 To closing balance. 6. The ld. AO observed that there was a payment of Rs 10 lakhs made by the assessee to M/s Parvatiya Mines on 02.11.2015. Accordingly, the ld. AO confronted the assessee that the balance outstanding in the account with M/s Parvatiya Mines should

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

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

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.

15-16 and all quarters of F.Y. 16- -17 and ledger accounts of both parties. ledger accounts of both parties. 7 Suryanchal Furnitech Regarding AO’s contention that appellant failed to furnish the details of transportation as the appellant was manufacturing the state of Uttarakhand and sales were made to parties located in West Bengal, it is noticed that appellant

DHANANJAY GIRI,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Dhananjay Giri, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Matta Garg & Co., Chartered Haldwani Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun Pan :Altpg7344P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Matta, Ca Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

15, Astley Hall, Dehradun PAN :ALTPG7344P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. S.K. Matta, CA Department by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short

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

section 68 r.w.s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the latter had failed to prove the source thereof during scrutiny as well as in the lower appellate proceedings. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submission. We hardly see any reason to sustain the impugned

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

RAJ BALA MITTAL,HARDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, HARDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him For Examination

15-Astley Hall, Vs Hardwar Dehradun PAN – ACQPM4815K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.K. Matta, CA Respondent by Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 29.06.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A)], Haldwani

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

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 9 | P a g e ITA No.3085/Del/2011

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)

68 taxmann.com 143)]; • DIT vs. Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd. [(2009) (182 Taxman 59)]; • Siem Offshore Inc, In re. [(2011) 12 taxmann.com 374] 12. Apart from above, he also relied upon the following decisions in support of its clam that consideration received for services rendered in connection with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils shall be taxable under section

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

15. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier order of Tribunal and decide the issue in favour of the assessee and allow this ground of assessee’s appeal. 16. Ground No.10 is regarding disallowance of depreciation and depletion. 17. We have heard ld. Sr. Counsel as well as ld. DR and carefully perused the orders

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the CIT(A) decision of A.Y 2006-07. 16. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee has diverted its interest

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the CIT(A) decision of A.Y 2006-07. 16. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee has diverted its interest

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

15,43,584\nperiod of 12 months)\n\nIt has been noticed from the above that cash withdrawal from the bank during the\ncurrent year has remained at almost the same percentage as compare to previous\nyear i.e. in the range of 32% to 40%. It is also noticed that the appellant firm follows\na consistent practice of depositing