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

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

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

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

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for the non- 3 | P a g e deduction of TDS under Section 194 in the case of such kind of assessees. Under the Income Tax Act, computation of total income is made under the various heads of income, viz :- i. Salary ii. Income from house property iii. Profits and gains

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.

13,600/- as deemed income and further disallowance of expenses of INR 78,80,905/- was made. 3. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 08.07.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and confirmed the additions / disallowance made, as the assessee failed to appear and file necessary

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

disallowed the same u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order which was upheld by the ld DRP. 15. With the aforesaid observations the ld AO pursuant to the order of the ld DRP passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- 2 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 “1. In law and on facts and circumstance of the case, Learned Assessing Officer (,'Ld. AO'') erred

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

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

3) of the Act by making disallowance of Rs. 13,98,31,925/- on the ground that Duty Draw Back occurred during the year cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, further disallowed Rs. 51,27,57,399/- under Section

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a commons order. ITA Nos. 03 & 24/DDN/2022 2 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. 3. In ITA No. 03/DDN/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On facts and circumstances

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a commons order. ITA Nos. 03 & 24/DDN/2022 2 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. 3. In ITA No. 03/DDN/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On facts and circumstances

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

13(3) @ 1% interest per month. The Assessing Officer finally disallowed a proportionate interest @ 12% per annum on amount of Rs. 1 crore holding that the interest bearing funds have been diverted for non-business purpose invoking the provisions of section

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

13(3) @ 1% interest per month. The Assessing Officer finally disallowed a proportionate interest @ 12% per annum on amount of Rs. 1 crore holding that the interest bearing funds have been diverted for non-business purpose invoking the provisions of 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

3 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA to have an Infrastructure Fund with specified purpose of the infrastructural development. As per the said GO, the appellant assessee had transferred certain specified percentage of its “aggregate fee & charges” to a separate account; namely, Infrastructure Fund. The outgoing/expenditure out of the said Infrastructure Fund had been mandated to be approved by the High Level

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

3 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA to have an Infrastructure Fund with specified purpose of the infrastructural development. As per the said GO, the appellant assessee had transferred certain specified percentage of its “aggregate fee & charges” to a separate account; namely, Infrastructure Fund. The outgoing/expenditure out of the said Infrastructure Fund had been mandated to be approved by the High Level

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

13. The issue of maximum time limit granted by learned AO in the notices issued under section 153A of the Act to file the return is to be construed as due date under section 139(1) of the Act, has been duly addressed by the Coordinate Bench decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. V.N. Devadoss