INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

disallowed and added back to its total income.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.03.2017, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.01.2024,allowed the appeal of the assessee.As against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present appeal. 5. The ld. DR submitted that

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.”

4) of section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

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

11. In the above narration of facts, a crucial point that requires to be considered is as to whether the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 on 13.06.2018 in response to notice issued under section 153A of the Act could be construed as a return filed within the due date

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

4. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Government Corporation, filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 declaring tentative losses of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- and (-) Rs.20,48,070/- respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessments were completed under section

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

4. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Government Corporation, filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 declaring tentative losses of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- and (-) Rs.20,48,070/- respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessments were completed 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

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

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

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

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

4 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA Ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017. The Ld. AR thus, prayed for relief on this score. 5.1 As far as the second issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section

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

4 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA Ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017. The Ld. AR thus, prayed for relief on this score. 5.1 As far as the second issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under 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

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

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section