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

Section 68 in respect of unsecured loans have not been obtained during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appellant therefore, pray that the appeal may be 4

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

4) of section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance

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

68,000/-. The assessee therefore, was show caused by the AO that why not the value for stamp purposes might be taken as a sale consideration in accordance with the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a submission as detailed in Para No. 4

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

4 & 5, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.2,33,08,000/- made under section 68

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

4 & 5, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.2,33,08,000/- made under section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

4 | P a g e 7.4. Thus AO has not brought any material on record to establish that the sales were bogus. Merely analysing the data by twisting the same and giving some findings which are not alone sufficient to justify the addition, the income so assessed is not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore there cannot

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.”

4. The ld. AO observed that to the aforesaid three parties, shares were allotted at a premium of Rs.390 per share, which was considered to be abnormal. The copy of share allotment register and share transfer register were duly furnished by the assessee to the Ld. AO. From the perusal of the same, it revealed that shares allotted

SIDHARTH BUILDWELL LLP,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, C- 1(2)(1), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansidharth Buildwell Llp Vs. Acit, 1, Darshiningate, Kanwali, Circle 1(2)(1), Kanwali B.O. Dehradun Haripuram, Dehradun Pan: Acufs6966M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Sachev, Ca Revenue By: Sh. A.S.Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Order : 27.02.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.11.2017 Declaring Income At Rs. 95,08,920/- For Assessment Year 2017- 18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reasons “Higher Turnover Reported In Service Tax Return As Compared To Itr, Large Increase In Unsecured Loans During The Year, Real Estate Business

Section 68 incorrectly invoked. 4. Appellant not at Fault For the Parties Not Responding To Notices Issued U/S 133(6) 4

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

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

68,600/- paid to the State Excise department as unexplained. The AO also noticed that the assessee, licensee of country liquor appointed by the 4 Reena Verma State Govt., had picked up her allotted quota of liquor from India Glycols Ltd. by making cash payment of Rs.40,09,123/- in contravention to section

D BALI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LTD.,KASHIPUR (U.S.NAGAR) vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KASHIPUR, KASHIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) D Bali Infrastructure & Vs. Dcit, Developers Ltd., Circle-2, Kashra No. 151, Apna Ghar Kashipur Village-Gangapur, Kundeshwari Road, Kashipur, Dist. Utham Singh Nagar-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcd3599D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2025

68 of the Act in the sum of Rs 1,80,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Learned DR and based on materials available on record. We find that assessee had filed

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

4. Further as per Form 26AS, the assessee had tax collected at source u/s 206CA of the Act by M/s Rajasthan State Beverages Sunil Srivastava vs. ITO Corporation Limited showing total purchase of Rs 2,52,68,805/- and tax collected at source of Rs 2,52,688/- . The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the same, which

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

4. As per the Assessment Order, the assessee has offered income from services performed in India u/s 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the deemed profit of 10% and income on sale of the spares carried outside India @1% as the deemed profit which has been duly examined and accepted by the AO. 5. The assessment was concluded

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the I.T. Act,\n1961 and the modus operandi of cash in hand as explained by the\nassessee has been found in contravention to the test human probability\nas discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs\nCIT (214 ITR 801) and Durga Prasad More Vs CIT.\n\nGround

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

4 5. Brief facts leading to this issue are that during the examination of the books of account, the AO found that assessee has made two entries of cash withdrawals of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 29/10/2011 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 17/11/2011 from its bank account with Uttarakhand Gramin Bank in its cash book, however, actually these were paid

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

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

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