IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

10B, in relation to the profits and gains of the undertaking or enterprise. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of section

BHUPENDRA BORA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

4)(a) of the DTAA read with section 90 and same cannot be disallowed for non-compliance of procedural requirement that is prescribed in the Rules. 8. It was further submitted by him that section 295(1) of the Act gives power to the CBDT to prescribe Rules for various purposes. Section 295(2)(ha) gives power to the Board

SRI GURU SINGH SABHA,NAINITAL vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the assessee is barred by the principle of stricter interpretation from claiming section 11 exemption relief herein once it has failed to ensure compliance of filing of tax audit report in Form 10B within the prescribed due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Its case

SRI GURU SINGH SABHA,NAINITAL vs. ITO(EXEM), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the assessee is barred by the principle of stricter interpretation from claiming section 11 exemption relief herein once it has failed to ensure compliance of filing of tax audit report in Form 10B within the prescribed due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Its case

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)

4. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the 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

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)

4,80,720/-. The Ld. A.O. of the opinion that the claim of exemption u/s 10(10C) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs would not be allowed as the same had not been claimed by way of filing return of income. 9. The assessee furnished yet another computation of income in which the assessee claimed relief

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

4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law by not going through the provisions u/s 10(23)(vi) of the Income Tax Act,1961 while it was main grounds of appeal of the Assessee. Even it its order there is no discussion about exemption under section 10(23)(C)(vi) of the Income