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

6. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the case of AY 2012-13 is that whether the loss declared in the ITR at (-) Rs.76,05,926/- should be taken as a base for computing income or the loss of (-) Rs.96,68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue

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

6. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the case of AY 2012-13 is that whether the loss declared in the ITR at (-) Rs.76,05,926/- should be taken as a base for computing income or the loss of (-) Rs.96,68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue

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

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

6. Mr. Vinay Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, in particular Section 17, is distinct from the provisions of Section 58 of the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. It is also argued that the amount received

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

6. Mr. Vinay Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, in particular Section 17, is distinct from the provisions of Section 58 of the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. It is also argued that the amount received

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 appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is yet to be decided by the competent authority. 6

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

11 Devendra Dutt Pant excessive weight to considerations which had a bearing only on potentialities of the land for use for agricultural purposes. For the reasons already given, we do not think that the term "agricultural land" had such a wide scope as the Full Bench appears to have given it for the purposes of the Act we have before

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

6,37,080 2014-15 27,95,725 2015-16 7,96,806 2016-17 12,16,310 2017-18 9,97,365 7. The assessee in the revised return filed on 13.12.2018 submitted that the taxes and interest payable on the additional income so offered for the AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 had to be appropriated from

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

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

Section 80IC of the Act on the ground that the Assessee failed to substantiate that the manufacturing was actually being done at Haridwar unit of the Assessee. 3. It is pertinent to note that, the Assessee approached Hon'ble High Court on the issue of disallowance made on the Duty Draw Back and during the pendency of the proceedings before

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

6. That the AO has grossly erred in making disallowance of Rs 9,41,400/- on account of purchase of chemicals. 7. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 39,86,242/- on account of disallowance of salary of Kameshwar Shukla. 8. That the AO and DRP have grossly

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowing the cost of improvement to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only on the ground that, one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against the enquiry letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had provided all the documentary evidences which have

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. WINDLASS ENGINEERS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Windlass Engineers & Services Ward 2(5), Dehradun. Pvt. Ltd., 11A, Rajpur Road, Dehrdun. Pan: Aaacw6855C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Virendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2018

6 | P a g e 16.05.2019 has reversed the order passed under section 263 of the Act and upheld the assessment order. In any case of the matter, in our view, as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DCIT vs. Aarham Softronics (supra), there is no infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner

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

6. Before us, two issues; net profit after rejection of books of account vis-à-vis specific disallowances under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act and taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors are in dispute. 7. We have heard the Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. The section 145 of the Act reads

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

6. Before us, two issues; net profit after rejection of books of account vis-à-vis specific disallowances under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act and taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors are in dispute. 7. We have heard the Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. The section 145 of the Act reads

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

6. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) vide Order dated 3-9-2021 confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and Bhupendra Bora therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A) also held that

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

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33,939/- in the following manner. Thus, the contention is that the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 had in principle accepted

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33,939/- in the following manner. Thus, the contention is that the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 had in principle accepted