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

68 and invoking the provision of Section 115BBE is concerned, the order of the AO and the detailed submissions of the assessee along with the case laws have been thoroughly perused and various case laws as relied upon by the assessee have also been gone through. The contentions of the assessee had been that it is not a case

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

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

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.

17 was to the tune of Rs. 3,66,93,397/ amount claimed to be received in cash of Rs. 82,91,500 amount claimed to be received in cash of Rs. 82,91,500 amount claimed to be received in cash of Rs. 82,91,500 and balance receivable as Rs.2,84,01,897). Although the lance receivable

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

17,24,405/- towards the bogus purchases.” 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18.11.2024, confirmed the addition made on account of purchase from M/s Delhi Steel Trading Co. and M/s New India Traders of Rs.15,10,506/- and Rs.53,00,074/-, respectively. Aggrieved

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

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

17 and 2017-18.What we seek to emphasise is that pending assessments for those two years could validly form subject matter of action under Section 153C and pending assessments in that respect would surely abate. However, that by itself would not be sufficient to either reopen or issue notices in respect of AYs' prior to or those falling after those

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

17 and 2017-18.What we seek to emphasise is that pending assessments for those two years could validly form subject matter of action under Section 153C and pending assessments in that respect would surely abate. However, that by itself would not be sufficient to either reopen or issue notices in respect of AYs' prior to or those falling after those

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

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

17 and 2017-18.What we seek to emphasise is that pending assessments for those two years could validly form subject matter of action under Section 153C and pending assessments in that respect would surely abate. However, that by itself would not be sufficient to either reopen or issue notices in respect of AYs' prior to or those falling after those

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

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

17 and 2017-18.What we seek to emphasise is that pending assessments for those two years could validly form subject matter of action under Section 153C and pending assessments in that respect would surely abate. However, that by itself would not be sufficient to either reopen or issue notices in respect of AYs' prior to or those falling after those

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

17 and 2017-18.What we seek to emphasise is that pending assessments for those two years could validly form subject matter of action under Section 153C and pending assessments in that respect would surely abate. However, that by itself would not be sufficient to either reopen or issue notices in respect of AYs' prior to or those falling after those

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

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

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

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

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

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

17. In the opinion of this Court, Section I44C is a self contained provision which carves out a separate class of assesses i.e. 'eligible assessee' i.e. any person in whose case the variation arises as a consequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of Section 92CA. For this class

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 43CA of the Act.\n\n15. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the orders of\nthe AO and submits that the difference was based on the valuation\ndone by DVO and the same being 11.49% of actual sale\nconsideration, therefore, AO has rightly made the additions which\ndeserves to be upheld

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue had taken all the adverse findings pointed out by the auditor appointed by the Revenue but not the loss determined by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. It was submitted that since the loss worked/determined out/by the auditor happened to be more than

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue had taken all the adverse findings pointed out by the auditor appointed by the Revenue but not the loss determined by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. It was submitted that since the loss worked/determined out/by the auditor happened to be more than