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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing standby I.T.A.No.6114/Del/2017 & CO No. 13/Del/2018 charges totaling to Rs.54,600,000/- on the ground of business exigency and business prudence not proved by the appellant.” 2. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the assessee challenged the validity of the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/144C r.w.s. 254 of the Income

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

disallowances, iii. the taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors and iv. Chargeability of interest under the Act, 12. The assessee was not represented by any one. So we heard the Sr. DR at length. The Ld. CIT(A) also restricted the deduction under section 80IC to 30% as against the assessee’s claim

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

disallowances, iii. the taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors and iv. Chargeability of interest under the Act, 12. The assessee was not represented by any one. So we heard the Sr. DR at length. The Ld. CIT(A) also restricted the deduction under section 80IC to 30% as against the assessee’s claim

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.

14,13,600/- 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

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 of deduction claimed under 59,39,91,068/- section 80IA

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

3) of section 143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee.” 22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act MB Petroleum Services LLC or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of section 143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee.” 22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly

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

3 of 8 8. Aggrieved by such an action of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue preferred this appeal contending that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error while granting relief to the assessee on both the counts. Ld. DR heavily relied on the assessment order to challenge the correctness of the first appellate order. 9. Per contra, it is the submission

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

3-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nwhether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,480/-\nmade by the AO on account of disallowance of the exempt agricultural\nincome claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the\nAO has clearly held in the assessment order that the assessee

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