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.9,77,145/- (employee’s contribution to Group Insurance), which has been taxed in accordance with the provisions of Section

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.9,77,145/- (employee’s contribution to Group Insurance), which has been taxed in accordance with the provisions of Section

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

145(3) considering that no books of account and bills or vouchers were furnished. The AO further held that since the assessee did not produce any books of account, such as stock register, purchase and sale book, cash book, bills or vouchers related to the expenses, purchase and sale, the net loss declared by the assessee

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFF SHORE SERVICES INC , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, ground no.3 is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.241/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc.,Unit No.603, 6Th Floor, Tax, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Satellite Gazebo, East Wing,Guru Road, Hargovindji Marg,Andheri Mumbai, Navi Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Mumbai,Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaach5154M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section of TDS has been put to rest by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Uttarakhand HC vide its order in the case of CIT v. Samsung Heavy Industries Company Limited(supra). Therefore, respectfully following the judicial ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, disallowance of Rs.4,47,53,145

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the depreciation of fixed assets transferred from UPJVNL for AY 2012-13, works out to Rs.4,13,68,564/- and these were transferred after the bifurcation from UPJVNL to UJVNL. It was submitted that the Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (UJVNL) was incorporated

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

disallowed the assesseee’s cash payments under section 40A(3) alleged unaccounted purchases and other 2 | P a g e business expenditure. We are of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee’s books of account has been rejected under section 145

CHAWLA AUTO CORPORATION,RUDRAPUR vs. A C I T CIRCLE-2(1)(1), HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 145(2) before estimating the profits of both the units to reduce the amount of deduction claimed u/s 80-IC of the Act out of the profits of Unit-1. Ld. AR further submits that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC @ 25% of the profits of eligible business and therefore, there would not be much difference between

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WESTERN GECO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, HARYANA

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

145,762/- reported under the head Profits and Gains from Business and Profession was offered under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and b) Receipts of INR 13,791,059 on account of GST not to be includible in the revenues chargeable to tax under section 44BB of the Act. c) Interest

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

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, the Assessee

ATRI PAPERS, PRIVATE LIMITED.,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Atri Papers Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Vs. Knp-C, Haridwar, Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aafcp1500J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 taxmann.com 665 (Del) a copy of which is placed at page 27 of the Paper Book submitted that the Hon’ble High Court held that in the penalty notice if the AO failed to specify the limb of under reporting or misreporting of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, penalty notice was erroneous and arbitrary

ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL,MANPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

section 69C without disputing the corresponding sale transactions which are borne out of the very same purchases. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying interest u/s 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case