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 of the Act, iii. Taxability of Rs.40,09,123/- under section 40A(3) of the Act iv. Chargeability of interest under the Act. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in the business of liquor trading, filed her Income Tax Return (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) declaring income of Rs.2,86,150/-. Later

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/- under section 43CA of the Act. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page No. 25 of the Paper Book which was nothing but the Draft agreement dated 12.07.1991, between TFDC and the assessee. He also drew our attention to page No. 30 of the Paper Book; i.e. the letter dated 24.06.1990 of the assessee. 4.1 Further

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 2(14). Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete\nthe addition of Rs.2,13,16,178 made Page 48 of 50 AAВСТ7938C-\nTRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-\n26/1079069899(1) on account of sale of agricultural land under the\nhead Long Term Capital gain. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed.\"\n\n7. With regard

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

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

ACHARYA BALKRISHNA,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

68 as unexplained cash credits and Rs. 1,25,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C for obtaining such loan were made in the hands of the assessee. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,177.00 by estimating the net profit @1.82%, which is highly arbitrary, unjust and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT (A) has also confirmed the same. 9. That the Assessing Officer/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in law in making the ad- hoc addition/disallowance

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,177.00 by estimating the net profit @1.82%, which is highly arbitrary, unjust and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT (A) has also confirmed the same. 9. That the Assessing Officer/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in law in making the ad- hoc addition/disallowance

UTTRANCHAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

68 of I.T Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 3.1 This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement respective stands. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the CIT(A)/NFAC has already 4 Uttranchal Social Development Centre Pvt. Ltd. recorded a categorical

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

50,000\n35%\n2,98,00,000\n22%\n8th Nov\nAvg. monthly sales (for a\n64,23,239\n1,15,43,584\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

ABHINAV RASTOGI,CHAMOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4)(4) SIRNAGAR, SIRNAGAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Abhinav Rastogi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tcp Market Joshimath, Ward-1(4)(4), Chamoli, Srinagar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan :Ccrpr7932M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Mangla, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 69A; credit entries taken as unexplained cash credits of Rs.17,50,900/- to the extent of Rs. 11,39,922/- and the cash deposits in savings account of Rs.2,67,500/- herein; respectively, vide the following detailed discussion: “8.1 Cash deposits of Rs 2653400 – according to taxpayer it is out of cash available with him on 8/11/2016. Assessee

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/- instead of returned loss of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- (ii) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in EPF and ECGI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) and 43B of the Act. (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50

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/- instead of returned loss of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- (ii) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in EPF and ECGI under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) and 43B of the Act. (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50