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

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

68 of the Act are not satisfied. Accordingly, he deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, in so far as the receipt of share premium is concerned, learned first appellate authority called upon the assessee to demonstrate as to how the share premium reflects the fair market value of the shares as per section 56(2)(viib

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

section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete this disallowance." In Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Vs ITO, the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore has also held - "6. In the instant case, there

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.”

68 of the Act in the instant case. 3 6. We find the ld.CIT(A) had quashed the reassessment proceedings by observing as under:- “23. On examination of the said reasons, certain things become apparent. The first is that the Investigation Wing of New Delhi had passed on information that the assessee company had received accommodation entries from the S.K.Jain

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

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. or delete any ground of appeal

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

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE by the AO is not correct. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration all the facts and the circumstances of the case, it appears that cash deposits in bank account represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. No defect in the trading account and the stocks

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

7. The next issue is in respect of the taxability of proprietor capital of Rs.1,20,000/- under section 68

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

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

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

7. The ld. AO noticed that the letters dated 07.09.2018 and 23.11.2018 of M/s Parvatiya Mines have been signed by Shri Vijayant Jaiswal and Smt Sunita Jaiswal respectively. These two parties are among the owners of the firms/ AOPs from which assessee is getting salary or having substantial benefits in them. Sunil Srivastava vs. ITO There are several bank transactions

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

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

68 of the IT Act and the submissions of the\nappellant with the documents filed to justify the submissions, it is seen\nthat the AO has made the addition for the cash deposited during\ndemonization period by not accepting the explanation offered by the\nappellant being out of cash in hand on account of cash withdrawal\nfrom the bank during

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.

section 68. 6.1.5 Thus, in view of facts of the case as discussed in para 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 and judicial pronouncement of various tribunals as discussed in para 6.1.4, I am of the view that addition made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO is unwarranted in this case. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2,78,62,397/- made

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