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

disallowance as expenses. In this regard we would like to submit that there was no purchase made for trading assets otherwise than account payee cheques therefore section 40A(3) is not applicable in our case and there is no amount of transaction of Rs. 7,14

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

disallowance as expenses. In this regard we would like to submit that there was no purchase made for trading assets otherwise than account payee cheques therefore section 40A(3) is not applicable in our case and there is no amount of transaction of Rs. 7,14

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

disallowance as expenses. In this regard we would like to submit that there was no purchase made for trading assets otherwise than account payee cheques therefore section 40A(3) is not applicable in our case and there is no amount of transaction of Rs. 7,14

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

disallowance as expenses. In this regard we would like to submit that there was no purchase made for trading assets otherwise than account payee cheques therefore section 40A(3) is not applicable in our case and there is no amount of transaction of Rs. 7,14

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

disallowance of Rs.25,16,884/- under Section 14A of the Act. Since there is no exempt income (income not forming part of taxable income); therefore, keeping in view the judicial pronouncements in this regard, we decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue fails accordingly. 14

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

disallowance of Rs.25,16,884/- under Section 14A of the Act. Since there is no exempt income (income not forming part of taxable income); therefore, keeping in view the judicial pronouncements in this regard, we decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue fails accordingly. 14

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since the Ld. CIT(A) followed the binding precedents in applying the pre-amended provisions to the case of the assessee, and rightly so, in view of the decisions referred to (supra), it cannot be said that the Ld. CIT(A) committed any illegality or irregularity. We are of the opinion that such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. THDC INDIA LIMITED, TEHRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

14,340/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.982,91,03,251/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.1208,85,53,720/-as under: S. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Disallowance

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

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

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

14. On perusal of provisions of section 153A of the Act, we find that there is no statutory time limit provided therein for filing the returns of income. When regular return has been filed by the assessee within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the same could be revised under section

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14

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

U C JAIN & SONS,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 3, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2012-13 Uc Jain & Sons, Vs Ito, Ward-3, C/O M/S. Rishabh Velveleen Ltd., Haridwar. 9Th Km. Haridwar Delhi Road, Jwalapur, Haridwar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaahu1616A

Section 80IB(10) of Rs.46,48,743/-. 3. The assessee has travelled to CIT(A) by way of appeal. Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO insofar as disallowance of Rs.46,48,473/- is concerned and observed hereunder: 2 UC Jain & Sons “14

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

disallowance of head office expense . 16 14. After hearing both the sides, we find during the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO alleged that the expenditure incurred by BGIL for the activities of the assessee in India were in nature of head office expenditure within the meaning of section

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 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 10: Disallowance of depreciation 10.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,14

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

section 90(2) of the Act, where the Central Government of India has entered into a DTAA, the provisions of the Act would apply to the extent they are more beneficial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed