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 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

natural justice 13.1. The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ground No. 14: Short credit for Tax deducted at source 14.1. The learned AO erred in not granting credit of tax deducted at source to the extent of Rs.2,37,656. Ground

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

natural justice 17.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ground No. 18: Non grant of credit for Advance Tax and Self-Assessment Tax 18.1 The learned AO erred in not granting credit of Advance Tax and Self-Assessment

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

natural justice 17.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ground No. 18: Non grant of credit for Advance Tax and Self-Assessment Tax 18.1 The learned AO erred in not granting credit of Advance Tax and Self-Assessment

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

natural justice. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not appreciated the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That in facts and circumstances of the ease, the AO has disallowed

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

natural justice. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not appreciated the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That in facts and circumstances of the ease, the AO has 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

natural justice 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ground No.15 : General 15.1 The Appellant submits that the AO, TPO and DRP have erred in arriving various unwarranted and erroneous conclusions unsupported by any relevant material in deciding the case

NORMAN GORGE WILSON,NOIDA vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),WARD-1, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5667/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Norman George Wilson, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abopw3343B Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts

PAUL GERARD JENNER,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEEHRTADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5669/Ddn/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Paul Gerard Jenner, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anwpj5878L Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts

JERRY KEMP KARTAR,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5668/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jerry Kemp Kartar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajzpc0774D Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts

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

natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The addition/ disallowances

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

natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The addition/ disallowances

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

natural justice, i.e. inter alia not providing an opportunity of being heard in person. 3. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

natural justice rendering orders passed by them as bad in law and void ab initio 2. That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

natural justice. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance

ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL,MANPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

natural justice laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO only on the basis of statements recorded u/s 133A r/w 131(1) which do not hold any evidentiary value. 10. In the facts and circumstances

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

natural justice. Bhaniyawala Kisaan Sewa Samiti Ltd. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 144. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred disallowed

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

natural justice. 4. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred in not adjudicating the grounds of objections in which all the additions on merits have been challenged. 5. That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in not following the directions of DRP in letter and spirit. 6. That the AO has grossly erred in making

M/S. RASAYANA HOTEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2010-11

natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the assessee to represent its case and to file its replies and clarification, is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 43,59,476/- on account