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

139(1). Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act, 1961 dated 29.08.2016 was issued to the appellant as it was noticed by the AO that the appellant in the earlier years was claiming exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act without fulfilling the requirement of Section 10(26BBB) of the Act. In response to the notice

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

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted

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

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating material found as a result ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT of search on the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.12.2014 and no proceedings were pending

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating material found as a result ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT of search on the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.12.2014 and no proceedings were pending

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating material found as a result ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT of search on the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.12.2014 and no proceedings were pending

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating material found as a result ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT of search on the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.12.2014 and no proceedings were pending

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating material found as a result ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT of search on the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.12.2014 and no proceedings were pending

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not based on any incriminating material found as a result ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT of search on the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.12.2014 and no proceedings were pending

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed: 6.3. As discussed above

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed: 6.3. As discussed above

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed: 6.3. As discussed above

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

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

139(1) return, in the course of the twin identical section 143(1) “proceedings”, both dated 28th January, 2024, and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 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(EXEM), DEHRADUN

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

139(1) return, in the course of the twin identical section 143(1) “proceedings”, both dated 28th January, 2024, and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 3. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the correctness of impugned section 11 exemption disallowance

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.

disallowance of Cash expenditure under Section 40A(3), given that the assessee was offering income under Section 44AD of the IT Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not pertinent. Despite this, the learned CIT(Appeals) displayed overenthusiasm in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the stringent provisions of Section

EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, DEHRADUN

In the result ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiexpress Drilling Systems Llc, Vs. Dict International Taxation, C/O. Nangia & Co, Circle-1, Dehradun A-109, Sector-136, Noida Pan: Aabce6891R (Appellant (Respondent)

Section 144C (3) (b) of The Income Tax Act on 29/0 5 /2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 203,786,360/–. 5. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A wherein the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. He dismissed claim of assessee for disallowance

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

139(1) of the Act. Ground No. 13: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 13.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying consequential interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground No. 14: Violation of principles of natural justice 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring