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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iv) The assessee's claim of allow-ability of expenses amounting to Rs.2,74,500/-, addition on account of which was made in the draft assessment order owing to claim of expenses which were found to be not pertaining to the year under consideration i.e. F.Y. 2011-12, was examined and not found acceptable. Vide reply dated 16.11.2015 assessee

HIMANSHU SHUKLA,RUDRAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance made on account of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Checkmate

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

IV [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Kanpur, pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 to 2016- 17. 2. At the outset, we find there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeals by the assessee. Considering the small duration of delay, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 2

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

iv) Photographs of agricultural activity being carried out by assessee at the time of sale of land (kindly see pages 223 to 224 of PB). v) Photographs of deep drain alongside aforesaid land used for irrigation activities (kindly see pages 221 to 222 of PB). vi) Copy of certificate of Sh. Ram Singh, husband of Smt. Saraswati Deviji, stating that

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33,939/- in the following manner. Thus, the contention is that the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 had in principle accepted

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33,939/- in the following manner. Thus, the contention is that the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 had in principle accepted

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

iv) of the Act on consultancy income of INR 152 Lakhs; (ii) Addition towards late payment surcharge was made by taking debt period of 10 months and it should have been taken for 12 months. 5. Accordingly, ld. PCIT show-caused the assessee that the assessment order so passed is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2\n3.\n4.\n2.1. The incomes are directly and inextricably linked with the power\ngenerating business and cannot be disentitled from the benefit of\n80-1A deduction\n2.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has completely ignored the detailed\nsubmissions made by the Appellant in this regard and blindly\nfollowed the orders of its predecessors.\nThat on the facts and circumstances

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

IV [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Kanpur, pertaining to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. AY: 2015-16 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by learned Assessing Officer in the sum of Rs.1 crore as unexplained investments

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

IV [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Kanpur, pertaining to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. AY: 2015-16 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by learned Assessing Officer in the sum of Rs.1 crore as unexplained investments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. HOTEL SURBHI PALACE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

2 DCIT Vs. Hotel Surbhi Palace 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee being a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of hotels, restaurants and Hospitality Services, filed its return for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring NIL income with a current year’s loss of Rs. 4,24,36,003/-. The case of the Assessee