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

5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, I.T.A.No.6114/Del/2017 & CO No. 13/Del/2018 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B. the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

Section 68 of the Act were proved in the 5 instant case. None of these factual findings were sought

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. admitted and orders may be passed rendering justice to the appellant. That the Appellant craves for the right to add, alter, amend 5

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

5. Whether the learned CIT (A) had erred in not questioning the correctness of the assessee's books of accounts maintained for the year for the given fact, the assessee in contravention of the Gazette Notification 2652 dated: 08.11.2016 as issued by the Central Government and against the basic accounting principle/concept of money measurement, had transacted in SBNs

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

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

5 MDDA Page 6 MDDA 7. In view the above facts, discussions and observations and theMOU, we are of the considered view that the provisionsof Section 43CA of the Act does not apply in this case. Ordered accordingly. Thus, we hold that the lower authorities have erred in taxing thesum of Rs.1,30,68

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

section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Before the Learned NFAC, there was no appearance from the side of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Learned NFAC ex parte without independently deciding the issue on merits. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay

SURENDRA SINGH,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

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

Bench: Shrir.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Surendra Singh, Vs. Dcit, Gali No. 1, Subhash Nagar, Circle, Haridwar Jwalapur, Ramesh Varampuram, Hardwar Pan: Barps1918M (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act on account of amount deposited by the Assessee in the bank account and of Rs. 30 lakhs u/s 69 of the Act on account of purchase of immovable property by the Assessee. 3. Against the said additions the Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner. It appears from the impugned order that the Assesseeon various

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

5,00,000-00 Hld. By labour charges. 31-03-2016 48,55,140.00 TDS payable Journal 48,551.00 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him For Examination

5 AY: 2013-14 notice under section 133(6) of the Act or issuing summons to the lender under section 131 of the Act for recording the statement on oath from the lender. Instead, learned Assessing Officer completely shifted the onus on the assessee to produce the party before him for examination. We are unable to comprehend ourselves

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

5. The assessment was concluded by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Range-I, Dehradun vide assessment order dated 22.11.2006 under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 3 G & T Resources (Europe) Ltd. 28.03.2011. In response to the notice

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 69 of the Act, is grossly arbitrary, totally erroneous and wholly uncalled for. 5. After considering the detailed submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “5. Decision I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. AO and the submission

SH.KULBEER SINGH SAJWAN,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Kulbeer Singh Sajwan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lane No.2, Ashok Vihar, Ward-1(1)(1), Haridwar Byepass, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Avmps9347K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in the course of assessment framed on 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. We having given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and Revenue’s foregoing contentions. We find no reason to concur with either party’s stands in entirety. We make it clear first

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 5

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