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

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

section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. However, before first appellate authority, assessee did furnish all the requisite details/supporting evidences in respect of share application money/share premium by way of additional evidences. From the details furnished, it is observed that the assessee had received share capital and share premium from its holding

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 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,11,169. However, the disallowances totaling to Rs. 2,12,426 have been suo-moto made by the assessee. Therefore, to prevent double addition, the difference of Rs. 8,65,98,743 was added by the AO to the total income. The AO proposed to disallow the expenses by alleging that since the said expenses had been incurred

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

42. In view of the above discussion and relying on the above mentioned decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, we hold that the returns filed by the assessees under section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under section 139(1) by virtue of the law stated in section 153A

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

42. The ld. CIT DR opposed to the same and submitted that the issue has been contested before the Hon’ble High Court. 43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. We fail to see any such provision in the act that if the other party

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

42,089/- resulting in net loss of Rs 47,81,382/-. On sale of shares, the assessee had earned short term capital gain at Rs 1,59,183/- and long term capital gain of Rs 12,61,857/-, which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee also furnished the ledger account of the assessee

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

42,500/-, admittedly, they are undated transactions, hence, cannot be specifically related to the impugned assessment year. 5.3 In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). This ground is dismissed. 6. In ground no. 4, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.18,59,506/-. 6.1 Briefly the facts are, from the seized

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

42,73,250/- may not be added to its income. Since, there was no response from the assessee, he proceeded to make the above said additions u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi. Several notices were issued to the assessee for hearing

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.

42,14,950/- 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

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

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

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Rajesh Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, B-4, New Sabzi Mandi, Vikash Central Circle, Nagar, Distti. Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpa7592E Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

42,530/- remain unexplained cash. When this was confronted to the assessee, the assessee explained in his sworn statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that the same was out of undisclosed business receipts. The assessee accordingly worked out the undisclosed business receipts for the whole year at Rs. 74,96,096/- and agreed to offer the same

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,650/- which is less than 10%. As per section 43CA difference\nto the extent of 10% is allowable. By Finance Act, 2018, the first\nproviso to Section 43CA(1) was inserted, and this proviso provided\nthat \"where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the\nauthority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does

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

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

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

42. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 462/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. The order passed by The Asst. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation , Dehradun (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred

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

42. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 462/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. The order passed by The Asst. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation , Dehradun (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred

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

42. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 462/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. The order passed by The Asst. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation , Dehradun (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred

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

42. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 462/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. The order passed by The Asst. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation , Dehradun (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred

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

42. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 462/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. The order passed by The Asst. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation , Dehradun (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred

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

42. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 462/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09:- “1. The order passed by The Asst. Director of Income Tax, International Taxation , Dehradun (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred