INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance

LAKSAR CO OPERATIVE CANE DEV. UNION LTD.,LAKSAR vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, ROORKEE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

250(5) before him. v. Because the application filed u/s 154 on 23.02.2021 before the Id. JAO has wrongly and illegally been rejected in as much as on whole facts, circumstances of the case, materials on record and in law, an 'adjustment of Rs. 57080005/- made in the intimation order dt. 02.12.2020 passed u/s 143(1) on account of disallowance

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 14A.” 3. The only issue involved in this case is disallowance u/s 14A.The assessee has shown the dividend income of Rs. 34,60,250

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 14A.” 3. The only issue involved in this case is disallowance u/s 14A.The assessee has shown the dividend income of Rs. 34,60,250

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by Ld. CIT(A), Noida-2. In this case, the Revenue has filed the appeal basically challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee on account of alleged deduction of tax at source u/s 194C of the Act instead of section 194J

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

disallowance of expenses on various grounds. The assessee pleaded before the ld AO that its income from the execution of the two contracts should be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. The assessee also gave detailed note on contract income earned by it with ONGC, Petrogas E&P LLC. As under:- 3.0 Detailed

SOBAN SINGH,DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Soban Singh, Vs Dcit Anand Nagar, Balawala Circle-1(1)(1) Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Djfps8212B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Abhinav Vijh, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363960 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. From The Perusal Of The Table Reproduced At Page 12 Of Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Containing The Party-Wise Details Of Rent Paid During The Previous Year, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Paid Rent To Total Six Parties In Cash Every Month & The Payment Made To Each Individual Owner Was Below The Maximum Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Of Inr 10,000/-. The Ao Has Wrongly Considered The Gross Amount Of Rent Paid To All The Landlords As In Violation Of Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. Since The Rent Paid To Each Individual Land Owner Was Below Inr 10,000/- On Each Occasion, Therefore, Provision Of Section 40A(3) Are Not Applicable. Accordingly, No Disallowance Is Required To Be Made U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. In The Light Of Above Facts, We Delete The Disallowance Made By The Ao. All The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Allowed.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 25.03.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the table reproduced at page

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed by ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 CHENNAI, Office of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal is against the law and on facts of the case. 2. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of the Rules. After examining the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of the Rules. After examining the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250

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

section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.29.58 lakhs; respectively, totaling to Rs.64,13,250/-. And that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has accepted the assessee’s net agricultural income of Rs.7,66,575/- only and upheld the latter twin additions. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the assessee

SHRI SHIV MANDIR PRABANDH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARS 1(2)(3) , DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthishiv Mandir Prabandh Samiti Vs Ito 135, Dharampur, Uttarakhand Ward-1(2)(3) Pan: Aayas3503P Dehradun, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act by making disallowance of Rs. 6,00,350/- claimed by the Assessee for expenditure towards Building Repair and Maintenance. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24/02/2021, Assessee preferred an Appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 02/05/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 7. Aggrieved

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL CO., BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15 Solar Turbines International Vs Dcit, Company (Singapore Branch Of Circle-2, Solar Turbines International International Taxation, Company, Usa), Dehradun. 14 Tractor Road, Singapore, C/O Delloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Deloitte Centre Anchorage- Ii, Richmond Road, Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs3585J Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed in the assessments for the year 1962-63 and onwards. 9. On the other hand, the Kolkata ITAT has delivered a judgment in the favour of revenue by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case of K. Srinivasan, 83 ITR 346 held that surcharge or "additional tax" would be included within the meaning of income

M/S HIMALAYAN VACATIONS, P. LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and e-filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.85,03,260/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of business expenses and after considering the submissions made

ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

250(6) because the Assessing officer has issued Notice u/s 139(9) on 02/05/2016 and further issued reminder on 08/06/2016. The Assessee has complied and filed ITR u/s 139(9) on 10/06/2016 wherein the exemption u/s 10(23(C) (vi) had been claimed and the Assessing officer has rejected this Return and processed Original return without providing any opportunity

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS,UDHASM SINGH NAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KASHIPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

250(6) of income Tax Act 1961  Order of Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is Prejudicial to us and, if ITAT appeal is not allowed to be proceeded, it amounting to against the law.  As per Assessee View :- 1. We filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) Haldwani for Our Firm Named Natural Herbals and Seeds situated