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

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

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

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with

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

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with

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

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

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

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

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

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

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

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

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

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

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

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

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

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

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

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

4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under section 201 of Income Tax Act even in the absence of any proceedings being

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

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

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

SANJEEV JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of interest amount paid on housing loan and 1 claimed as a deduction under section 24 (b) of The Income Tax Act 1961 made by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun made by order under section 153A (1) (b) read with section 143 (3) of The Act passed on 28/12/2018 is confirmed. 02 The brief