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 under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act and taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors are in dispute. 7. We have heard the Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. The section 145 of the Act reads as under: Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. “Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Page 1 Cherrie Gems Pvt. Ltd. (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [the 'Ld. CIT'], is erroneous, based on surmises, preconceived notions, incorrect facts and incorrect application of law. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

SH. AROON KUMAR SINHA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Aroon Kumar Sinha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1, Army Office Enclave, Ward-1(1), Laxmipur Po, Umedpur, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aidps7458R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 Order

disallowance that both the learned authorities have rightly rejected the assessee’s corresponding twin submissions. 5. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned Assessing Officer in fact framed his section 144

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

144. 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

PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Ward 1(4) (1), Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, 249201, Uttarakhand Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Pan: Aldpd9616P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 Order

144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 36,05,530/- on account of suppression of sale receipts u/s 28 of the Act and also made addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/03/2024

KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kumaon Brick Field, Ward-Khatima C./O- Adv. N.R. Goel, 32 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Afqpa1977B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel vehemently argues at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in re- estimating the assessee’s alleged suppressed valuation in sale of bricks to the tune of Rs.14

BHAWANA AGRWAL,DEHRADUN vs. NFAC-DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhawana Agarwal, Vs. Nfac-Delhi 3/3, Race Course, Dehradun Pan :Aazpa2029C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We next note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had in fact framed his assessment on 25th March

PASCHIMI RUDRAPUR F S S LIMITED,DANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(4), RUDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) S.A. No.1/Ddn/2026 With Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Paschimi Rudrapur F S Vs. Income Tax Officer, S Limited, Village Danpur Ward-2(1)(4), P.O. Danpur, Rudrapur, Rudrapur Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrarpur Pan: Aabap2900M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pravesh Sharma, Ca Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowance(s)/addition(s) in issue. We thus take up the assessee’s main appeal ITA No.258/DDN/2025 itself for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 3. This assessee’s appeal is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081503590

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

disallowance of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises was, in any case, extensively examined during the course of original as well as reassessment proceedings and the same was, therefore, outside the scope of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 2.3. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of „alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Meet

SHREEVAAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. On a careful reading of section 115BBE, it is observed that prior to 01.04.2017, there was no restriction in section 115BBE in respect of set off of losses. Only through an amendment made to sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

section 80IC of the I.T. Act 1961 and produced all the relevant documents in support of its claim. 4. That Ld. Authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of deprecation f Rs. 3,82,226/- on the fixed assets purchased during the year and also on fixed assets purchased in previous years and confirming the same and ignoring

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 80 IA, the same\nis taxed without any real income. Ld. AR thus, requests that deduction\nu/s 80IA of the Act on these items of income deserves to be allowed.\n11. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of\nthe lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned\norder wherein items on which