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

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

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

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section

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

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

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

2) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17 was very much available with the revenue as on the date of search. Hence there is no need for existence of any incriminating material found during the course of search for this assessment year. We find that only disallowance made in the search assessment completed under section 153A

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

17,08,000/- which has been disclosed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and due taxes has been paid in the earlier year is against the principal of accounting and natural justice. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not appreciated the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

17,08,000/- which has been disclosed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) and due taxes has been paid in the earlier year is against the principal of accounting and natural justice. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not appreciated the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income

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

section 144C(13) of the Act on 30.01.2015 starting the computation of total income by taking the income as reflected in the audited profit and loss account of the assessee and determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,72,23,425/-. 16. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. The copy of contract entered into

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.”

2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the circumstances the property and the liabilities of the undertaking or undertakings being transferred by the demerged company are transferred at the values appearing in its books of accounts immediately before the demerger. Thus, fixed assets worth Rs.682,05 crores were received by the assessee on account of demerger of UPJVNL vide