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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17

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

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

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

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

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.

disallowance may substantially be reduced. 11. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the addition as sustained by the CIT (A), NFAC may please be deleted.” Ground of appeal Nos.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are with 5. respect to the jurisdiction of the AO when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO having no jurisdiction

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

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

disallowed the same u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order which was upheld by the ld DRP. 15. With the aforesaid observations the ld AO pursuant to the order of the ld DRP passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 30.01.2015 starting the computation of total

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

3. since additions made to the returned income under Section 68 in respect of unsecured loans have not been obtained during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appellant therefore, pray that the appeal may be 4. admitted and orders may be passed rendering justice to the appellant. That the Appellant craves for the right

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

17:46, 20/05/2025] RAJESH KUMAR: total turnover of Rs. 16,61,28,493/-. During the year a total amount of Rs.34,74,000/-in cash has been deposited by assessee in old SBNs of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-. 6.2. The assessee during the course of assessment proceeding explained that the deposits were his cash sales in old currency SBNS and were

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

17 of his order that beneficial owner of said applications, is assessee herein only, just on moral/ extraneous and irrelevant grounds having no bearing to sec. 37 of the Act which is contrary to well settled and well acknowledged description of sec.37 of the Act. I.T.A.No.261/Del/2018 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly placed reliance

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 6. We find that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal in A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 5856/DEL/2011, 4279/DEL/2012, 5744/DEL/2012 and 2506/DEL/2013. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under: “27. We have considered the submissions

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions