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

12. Assessee also relied upon the decision on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam [1997] 226 ITR 696. The facts of the case relied upon by the assessee are quite distinguishable from the present case. In the case relied upon by the assessee

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.

disallowance out of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act to the extent of INR 211,15,54,378/- and 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 and no deduction u/s 80IA was allowed

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

10: Disallowance of head office expenditure 10.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in applying the provisions of section 44C of the Act to payments made to BG International Limited. 10.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the head office expenditure was allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT in Appellant’s own case

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

10: Disallowance of head office expenditure 10.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in applying the provisions of section 44C of the Act to payments made to BG International Limited. 10.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the head office expenditure was allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT in Appellant’s own case

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA 12. It is also appropriate to take note of the corresponding provision, i.e Section 58 of the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973. It reads as under:- "58. Dissolution of Authority. – (1) Where the State Government is satisfied that the purposes for which the Authority was established under this Act have been substantially achieved

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA 12. It is also appropriate to take note of the corresponding provision, i.e Section 58 of the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973. It reads as under:- "58. Dissolution of Authority. – (1) Where the State Government is satisfied that the purposes for which the Authority was established under this Act have been substantially achieved

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

12: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 12.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying interest under section 234A of the Act whereas the Appellant filed the return of income within the due date applicable to it under the provision of section 139(1) of the Act. Ground No. 13: Erroneous levy

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have gone through the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect. We have also noticed the amendment made to section 194C (6) vis-à-vis the pre-amended provision. Insofar as the provision applies to the assessment year 2014-15, it requires the contractor to obtain

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)

disallowed. Accordingly, income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 38,67,996/- against the returned income as per the revised return of income at Rs. 37,17,350/-. The Ld.CIT(A) by considering the relevant provision u/s 10(1) & 10(10C) of the Act, found that claim made by the assessee is genuine and based on bonafide ground even

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

10) is decided in favour of the assessees and the orders of the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) on this issue is upheld on the ground that the returns filed under section 153A are returns filed under section 139(1).” 14. On perusal of provisions of section 153A of the Act, we find that there is no statutory time limit

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

12,190/- be taken as against original income Rs. 10,79,440/- and the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches

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

12,190/- be taken as against original income Rs. 10,79,440/- and the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches

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

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

12 as well as section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Aggrieved by the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1), the assessee filed petition u/s. 154 of the Act with the Income-tax Officer (Exemption) whereby the Assessing Officer made an addition on account of short fall of application of income

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. THE NAINITAL BANK LTD., UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Bleassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance out of interest made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we hereby affirm the order of CIT(A) and Revenue fails on this aspect. 7. Insofar as the second issue in this appeal is concerned, the same emanates from the action of the AO in scaling down

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 10: Disallowance of depreciation 10.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,14,46,607 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 10.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that this

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

10. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 5,41,080/- being payment to NOV Brandt Oilfield. 11. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 20,22,921/- being payment to Global Marine Technologies. 12. That

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions