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.

250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and 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 and replies were filed by the assessee. After considering the submissions, total income was assessed at INR 1,93,96,755/- by making

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

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under section 201 of Income Tax Act even in the absence of any proceedings being initiated or order being passed under that section. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by holding

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under section 201 of Income Tax Act even in the absence of any proceedings being initiated or order being passed under that section. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by holding

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SUBHASH ROAD vs. UJVN LIMITED, GMS ROAD

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

sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "115BAA" ], "issues": "1. Disallowance of depreciation on demerged assets. 2. Timeliness of deposit

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

1), dated 19.02.2024, involving proceedings under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed

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

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

M/S UJVN LIMITED ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTARAKHAND

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

sections": [ "250", "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "115BAA" ], "issues": "Whether depreciation on demerged assets is allowable? Whether delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI paid after salary disbursement but within statutory limits should be disallowed

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 (AO) at CPC u/s 143(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"]\narising from the assessment order dt. 27.09.2022 passed u/s 143(3)\nr.w.s.144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21.\nPage | 1\nITA No.69/DDN/2024\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the\nbusiness of generation and supply of hydro power as well as wind

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act"] arising from\nthe assessment order dated 25.01.2024 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act\npertaining to assessment year 2022-23.\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed her\nreturn of income on 30.09.2022, declaring total income of INR\n49,61,640/-. Subsequently, a search

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 05.03.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for reason i.e. “large investment in immovable property

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in 2 ITA No.2299, 2300.Del.2017 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain confirming the addition of Rs. 90,702/- as per 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

1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in 2 ITA No.2299, 2300.Del.2017 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain confirming the addition of Rs. 90,702/- as per 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