INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(4), RUDRAPUR, RUDRAPUR vs. SWARNIM PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer-2(1)(4), Swarnim Promotoers & Rudrapur. Developers, Vs. Mandi Parisar Kichha Road, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. Pan: Abqfs9375M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, Ca & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 06.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 17.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,89,400/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Has Computed The Total Income At Rs.1,27,38,630/- Vide Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 02.06.2011 By Making The Following Additions/Disallowances:

Disallowance of depreciation of Rs.12,666/- and (vi) Disallowance of construction and development expenses of Rs.4,36,249/-. 3. Against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., GMS ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

UJVN LIMITED ,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

UJVN LIMITED ,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,64,44,637/- on the assets acquired from UPJVNL. In this regard, he submitted that

M/S. KVN AUTO ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO- 1(2), HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.6446/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2012-13) Kvn Auto Engineering (P). Ltd., Plot No. 62, Ramji Vihar, Near Transport Nagar, Haldwani, Uttarakhand ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadck-9080-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haldwani, Uttarakhand अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr (Through Vc) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 21/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.10.2016, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised In Appeal Is Ad Under:

disallowed by the AO on statement made by the assessee. Once the claim of depreciation has been disallowed by the AO, on the ground

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the expense of Rs 10,78,358/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS. 7. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in denying the claim of depreciation

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act MB Petroleum Services LLC or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication of additional ground for claim of income tax depreciation

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

disallowing the claim of deprecation f Rs. 3,82,226/- on the fixed assets purchased during the year and also on fixed assets purchased in previous years and confirming the same and ignoring the fact that the assessment of the appellant for the immediate preceding assessment year had also been completed

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation on total amount of Rs. 24,34,70,741/-. It was further observed that cost of revenues were shown under the following three sub-heads for an aggregate sum of Rs. 23,91,08,293/-: (i) Hook up and commissioning Rs. 89,04,947/- (ii) Insurance Rs. 22,66,85,140/- (iii) Pre-engineering and survey

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation on total amount of Rs. 24,34,70,741/-. It was further observed that cost of revenues were shown under the following three sub-heads for an aggregate sum of Rs. 23,91,08,293/-: (i) Hook up and commissioning Rs. 89,04,947/- (ii) Insurance Rs. 22,66,85,140/- (iii) Pre-engineering and survey

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

disallowance made by the AO. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed. 12. Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue are with respect to the findings of ld. CIT(A) in disregarding the action of AO in treating the additional income of INR 3.89 crores offered during the course of survey on account

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act without appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is yet to be decided by the competent authority. 6. That without prejudice to the above the ADDL/JCIT has erred