“Section 143(3)”

M/S A-One Enterprises, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Dehradun

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S A-One Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, 135/61 East Patel Nagar, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Vs. Pan-Aanfa5222D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short], Dated 25.08.2025 In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Dehradun/10654/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The Act’ In Short) Dated 16.12.2029 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,08,939/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Vide Order Dated 16.12.2019 At A Total Income Of Rs.51,79,869/- By Making Additions Of Rs.48,49,500/- U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs.21,430/- U/S 41(1) Of The Act. A-One Enterprises Vs. Ito 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Partly Allowed The Appeal By Allowing The Additions Of Rs.4,49,500/- After Verification By The Ao & Confirmed The Remaining Additions Of Rs. 44.00 Lacs Made U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs. 21,430/- Towards Bogus Liability.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB’: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Br Associates, Uttarakahand vs. ACIT, Rishikesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Pardeep Kumar Walia, Dehradun vs. DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Seabird Exploration Fz-Llc, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Income Tax Officer, Dehradun vs. Rakesh Mohan Verma, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ito Vs Rakesh Mohan Verma Ward-1(1)(3) 144, Neshvilla Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 13 A, Subhhash Road, 248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Abbpvcv4728J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Amit Arora, Ca & Shri Vishal Mishra, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.05.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Dehradun/10729/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income 10,94,900/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Issue “Large Cash Deposits Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.08.2018, Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Issued From Time To Time. In Response, The Assessee Filed Replies & Produced All The Information & Supporting Documentary Evidences For Examination. The Ao Vide Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,53,25,642/- Wherein Addition Of Inr 69,81,000/- Is Made As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Towards The Bank Deposits & Further Inr 9,60,568/- Added As Unexplained Income Being Difference Between Deposits & Income Declared. Further An Addition Of Inr 62,89,172/- Is Made As One Fourth Payments Against Loan Repayment Of Rs.251,56,689/- Repaid From Undisclosed Sources U/S 69A Of The Act.

ITA No.122/DDN/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

M/S. Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Jaggo, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Shri Raghubhai Virabhai Bharwad, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] arising out of assessment framed under section 143(3) and penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2014-15. Since common facts

Shri Raghubhai Virabhai Bharwad, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] arising out of assessment framed under section 143(3) and penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2014-15. Since common facts

Drdo Range Educational Society Chandipur, Chandipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE

Drdo Range Educational Society Chandipur, Baleswar vs. Income Tax Officer, Cuttack

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE

Nimmagadda Gopichand, Vijayawada vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited Scrutiny”. 3. Thereafter, the AO framed the assessment vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 17.12.2019, wherein, after making an addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act, the income ... Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.743/VIZ/2025 Nimmagadda Gopichand 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 17.12.2019 before the CIT(A), who vide his order dated 21.06.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 5. Thereafter

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

which in turn arises from I.T.A.No.632 & 633/VIZ/2025 M. Nagi Reddy & Company the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28.12.2019 and under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated ... Page. No 7 I.T.A.No.632 & 633/VIZ/2025 M. Nagi Reddy & Company of the assessee firm were scrutinized and the respective assessments were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR to buttress has claim had taken us through the respective assessment orders passed by the A.O under section 143

M. Nagi Reddy Company, Visakhapatnam vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee firm are partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

which in turn arises from I.T.A.No.632 & 633/VIZ/2025 M. Nagi Reddy & Company the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28.12.2019 and under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated ... Page. No 7 I.T.A.No.632 & 633/VIZ/2025 M. Nagi Reddy & Company of the assessee firm were scrutinized and the respective assessments were framed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR to buttress has claim had taken us through the respective assessment orders passed by the A.O under section 143

Sri Gudibandi Somi Reddy Educational Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

turn arises from the order passed by I.T.A.No.533/VIZ/2025 Sri Gudibandi Somi Reddy Educational Society the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 13.12.2017 for the Assessment Year 2015- 16. The assessee society has assailed the impugned

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

present appeal filed by the assessee-company is directed against the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 143(3) I.T.A.No.533/VIZ/2024 Teejay India Private Limited r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”] dated ... Teejay India Private Limited 6. Aggrieved, the assessee company objected to the additions/disallowances proposed by the A.O vide his draft order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act dated 08.12.2023 before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore (for short, “DRP”). However, the DRP did not find