ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

addition to the fixed assets as per the Schedule submitted. The balance depreciation claimed in the profit and loss account is to be disallowed and is to be added back to the taxable income

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

income of the appellant. The AO did not, however, make any addition since the said expenses had already been disallowed

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

income of the appellant. The AO did not, however, make any addition since the said expenses had already been disallowed

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

addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the burden of the appellant stood discharged u/s 68 of the Act and therefore the conclusion that initial onus case upon the appellant has not been discharged is justified and is not in accordance with law. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

income at Rs.4,37,640/-. The additions are illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 22. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, AO/CIT(A) has erred in recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing the alleged adverse material used against

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

income at Rs.4,37,640/-. The additions are illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 22. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, AO/CIT(A) has erred in recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing the alleged adverse material used against

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

income at Rs.4,37,640/-. The additions are illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 22. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, AO/CIT(A) has erred in recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing the alleged adverse material used against

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

income at Rs.4,37,640/-. The additions are illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 22. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, AO/CIT(A) has erred in recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing the alleged adverse material used against

SHREEVAAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

addition of surrendered business income has been made under section 69 of the Act, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will automatically come into play, which debars the assessee from claiming set off of expenses or loss against surrendered income. Accordingly, he disallowed

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

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

income and the tax audit report and since similar disallowance has been made in AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, therefore, the AO disallowed the depreciation and depletion of Rs.1,24,84,806/-. The DRP upheld the additions

ANU AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

addition of Rs.7,15,000/- assessed u/s 61 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee

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)

addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer (AO) at CPC u/s 143(1)(ii) through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

additions as under:- House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 26,383/- Income from other sources Rs. 12,388/- Taxable Income Rs. 35,81,330/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

additions as under:- House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 26,383/- Income from other sources Rs. 12,388/- Taxable Income Rs. 35,81,330/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal

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

addition. I also noticed that the assessee has also complied with the requirements of sec. 68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that the assessee has not discharged the responsibility placed on it u/s 68 of the Act. Peculiarly, the AO is taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to collect the demonized notes

SAWINDER JEET SINGH KALER,NANITAL vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), , NANITAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Sawinder Jeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaler, Ward-2(3)(1), Gol Ghar, Mallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand Pan :Alypk9431G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowing his agricultural income of Rs.9,85,000/- and cash deposits of Rs.15,15,490/-; respectively, upheld in the lower appellate discussion, reading as under: “8.1 Ground No 4 is directed against the AO making addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL CO., BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15 Solar Turbines International Vs Dcit, Company (Singapore Branch Of Circle-2, Solar Turbines International International Taxation, Company, Usa), Dehradun. 14 Tractor Road, Singapore, C/O Delloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Deloitte Centre Anchorage- Ii, Richmond Road, Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs3585J Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed in the assessments for the year 1962-63 and onwards. 9. On the other hand, the Kolkata ITAT has delivered a judgment in the favour of revenue by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case of K. Srinivasan, 83 ITR 346 held that surcharge or "additional tax" would be included within the meaning of income

PRADEEP SHARDA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Pradeep Sharda Vs Acit 7, Inder Road, Dehradun Circle-1(2)(1) Uttarakhand -248001 Dehradun Pan-Adwps5692K Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10344/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 01.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Practicing Doctor & E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,16,70,906/- On 30.10.2017. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Additions Of Inr 15,84,870/- Comprising Of The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Inr 5,05,195/- & Treating The Agricultural Income Of Inr 6,25,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Of Inr 4,54,675/- As The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Cash Credit.

addition of INR 6,25,000/- made on account of agricultural income treated as undisclosed income and disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of INR 5,05,195/-. 4. Before