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

3) of the Act is without jurisdiction since 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

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

3) of the Act is without jurisdiction since 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

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

3) of the Act is without jurisdiction since 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

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

3) of the Act is without jurisdiction since 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

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

3) of the Act is without jurisdiction since 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

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

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred 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 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

section 143(3)/147 of the Act on 30.03.2017, wherein the claimed exemption of Rs. 5,82,53,120/- by the appellant was 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

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

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 provisions of rule 128 are mandatory in nature. The CIT(A)rejected

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

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose 5 G & T Resources (Europe) Ltd. fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation

NEERAJ SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT ACIT CEN CIR , DDN , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

3) The Learned CIT (A) made additions of Rs. 32,969 and Rs. 45,570 based on loose paper containing rough workings that have no relation to the appellant's business. These papers neither mention the appellant's name nor the business, and the amounts listed were never treated as expenditures by the appellant. Treating these amounts as unexplained expenditure

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the opinion of the auditors in the tax audit report under section 44AB. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the opinion of the auditors in the tax audit report under section 44AB. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order 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

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

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in sustaining an addition in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the opinion of the auditors in the tax audit report under section 44AB.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.1

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

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