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 made

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

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

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

250(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said order Hon'ble CIT (A) - II has also accepted above argument i.e. the provision of section 44BB(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 is applicable and not 44DA (copy of order is attached). Therefore we submit that the assessment should be completed u/s 44BB.” 19. The assessee furnished the bill wise

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

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

disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings

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

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

disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings

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

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm come into existence w.e.f. 01/04/2011 and was engaged in the M/s Nanak Chand Associates vs. ITO business of running of Wine shops in Garwhal Region. The return of income was filed on 01/10/2012 declaring

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS ,U.S. NAGAR vs. ACIT, 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

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

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS ,U.S. NAGAR vs. ACIT, 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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2),, KASHIPUR vs. NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS , U.S. NAGAR

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

NATURAL HERBALS & SEEDS ,UDHAM 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

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

SAURAV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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] Saurav Malik Vs Ito 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 Pan-Bdypm6527J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 05.11.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee e-filed his return of income on 29.10.2017, declaring total income of INR 7,59,830/-. The case was selected for complete

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

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