M/S HIMALAYAN VACATIONS, P. LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowed out of Sales Promotion Expenses and penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were initiated for under reporting of income

UTTARANCHAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 165/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Uttaranchal Cooperative Sugar Vs Joint Commissioner Of Factories Federation Ltd., Income Tax, Dehradun Jogiwala, Near Railway Crossing, Uttarakhand-248001 Badripur, Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7713K Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Kishore, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/10769767588(1) Dated 12.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

penalty. Learned departmental representative more particularly submits that the corresponding quantum disallowance herein is that of denial of the assessee

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LIMIED.,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed as bogus expense claimed and being added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LIMITED,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed as bogus expense claimed and being added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED, GADARPUR,GADARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

disallowance is an instance of concealment of income at the assessee’s behest attracting section 271(1)(c) in issue. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. We find no reason to sustain the impugned penalty

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

disallowed and added back to the income of the Assessee vide assessment order dated 21-03-2013. Consequent to the assessment order, penalty

GRAND LEGACY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

disallowed by the AO for the reason that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed for claiming said deduction and initiated the penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD. , I.T. PARK, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

penalty for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) regarding excess claim of Rs.5,74,49,588/- u/s 80IA and Rs. 1,85,000/- as expenses disallowed

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

disallowed and assessment is completed on total income of Rs.6,79,59,986/-accordingly. Issue notice of demand. Charge interest u/s 234A/B/C. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Penalty

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.274,500/- by treating it as prior period expense. 10. In law and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not passing an order considering the grounds appealed against by the Assessee after admitting an appeal filed u/s 246A by the Assessee. 11. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances

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 in the assessment would be liable for deletion. Accordingly, the ground nos. 2 to 11 raised by the assessee are allowed and additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 26. With regard to ground raised in seeking correct credit for TDS, the same requires factual verification and hence Ld AO is directed

U.C. JAIN & SONS,HARIDWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penalty has been imposed against the Law & Fact of case while assessee has applied completion certificate as on 24.03.2012, but the H.D.A Haridwar has been issued compounding certificate, which is the nature of completion certificate since the extra floor which has constructed by the appellant has been compounded by the H.D.A as per rules & regulation of the authority. The fact

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

disallowing exchange loss of Rs.58,45,008 on account of foreign exchange fluctuation for loan taken during the year. Ground No. 16: Claim for deduction of cess 16.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to allow deduction in respect of education cess on income-tax paid

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

disallowing exchange loss of Rs.58,45,008 on account of foreign exchange fluctuation for loan taken during the year. Ground No. 16: Claim for deduction of cess 16.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the learned AO be directed to allow deduction in respect of education cess on income-tax paid

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

disallowing inventory written off of Rs.25,28,05,028 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 7 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventoiy written off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account which has been audited by an independent auditor

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

disallowing inventory written off of Rs. 15,71,20,459 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 11.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventory written off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account which has been audited by an independent auditor

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.”

disallowed depreciation is not sustainable. It is accordingly deleted. The ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 11. On the Issue of Capacity charges, Deemed Generation Charges and Capacity Index Incentive in the appeal for the AY2011-12, I had held that under:- “It was also observed from the submissions filed by the UPCL that the UPCL has not contested

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises was, in any case, extensively examined during the course of original as well as reassessment proceedings and the same was, therefore, outside the scope of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 2.3. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of „alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Meet