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

3. The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground that there is no incriminating material found qua the addition made on account of share application money in the course of the search

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

3. The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground that there is no incriminating material found qua the addition made on account of share application money in the course of the search

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

3. The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground that there is no incriminating material found qua the addition made on account of share application money in the course of the search

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

3. The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground that there is no incriminating material found qua the addition made on account of share application money in the course of the search

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

3. The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground that there is no incriminating material found qua the addition made on account of share application money in the course of the search

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing standby I.T.A.No.6114/Del/2017 & CO No. 13/Del/2018 charges totaling to Rs.54,600,000/- on the ground of business exigency and business prudence not proved by the appellant.” 2. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the assessee challenged the validity of the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/144C r.w.s. 254 of the Income

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

11. Vide 13 grounds, the assessee has raised following issues: i. Restricting the claim of deduction under section 80IC to 30% as against the claim of 50%, ii. Application of average net profit rate of 1.82% after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act net profit after rejection of books of account vis-à-vis specific 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

11. Vide 13 grounds, the assessee has raised following issues: i. Restricting the claim of deduction under section 80IC to 30% as against the claim of 50%, ii. Application of average net profit rate of 1.82% after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act net profit after rejection of books of account vis-à-vis specific disallowances

ANUJ KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Anuj Kumar Vs. Acit Dcit Central Circle, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Investigation Wing, Cross Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan: Aetpk0635A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Chatterjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

disallowed. But, as per AO, no explanation with regard to the source of the expenditure could be submitted by the assessee. Further, the AO stated that on examination of the assessee's sole saving bank account bearing no. 1326000100112409 with Punjab National Bank, Haripur, Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, it is observed that, the assessee had nil cash withdrawal from his said

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

disallowance may substantially be reduced. 11. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the addition as sustained by the CIT (A), NFAC may please be deleted.” Ground of appeal Nos.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are with 5. respect to the jurisdiction of the AO when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO having no jurisdiction

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

3) of section 143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee.” 22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act MB Petroleum Services LLC or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. 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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’), wherein various additions/disallowances were made. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noted that the assessee had declared losses based on its tentative Profit & Loss accounts annexed with ITRs. As per the assessee, the C & AG had not appointed any auditor; therefore, its books

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’), wherein various additions/disallowances were made. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noted that the assessee had declared losses based on its tentative Profit & Loss accounts annexed with ITRs. As per the assessee, the C & AG had not appointed any auditor; therefore, its books

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2016 title limited scrutiny’ categorically states that the issue of deduction claimed under the head capital gains have been identified for examination. Admittedly, no such adjustment to the returned income of the assessee was made with respect to deduction claimed by the assessee under the head capital gain. Admittedly, such deduction was allowed

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of section 143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee.” 22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly

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

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

3. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the correctness of impugned section 11 exemption disallowance

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

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

3. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the correctness of impugned section 11 exemption disallowance