ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

11 of this order, we decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue fails accordingly. 18. The second last issue is in respect of disallowance of Rs.12,21,032/- under Section

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act). Further, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard 11

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

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

section 11 exemption disallowance. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the assessee is barred by the principle of stricter

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

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

section 11 exemption disallowance. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the assessee is barred by the principle of stricter

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 153 A of the Act was not satisfied.” 5.4 In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and as upheld

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 153 A of the Act was not satisfied.” 5.4 In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and as upheld

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 153 A of the Act was not satisfied.” 5.4 In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and as upheld

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 153 A of the Act was not satisfied.” 5.4 In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and as upheld

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 153 A of the Act was not satisfied.” 5.4 In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and as upheld

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

Section 153 A of the Act was not satisfied.” 5.4 In view of the above, we hold that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and as upheld

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 11: Disallowance of depreciation 11.1 The learned

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 11: Disallowance of depreciation 11.1 The learned

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

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

11 November 2021 [bearing DIN no. ITBA/DRP/S/91/2021- 22/1036841066(1)] issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other grounds. Ground No, 1: Erroneous disallowance

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)

section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act without

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