ATRI PAPERS, PRIVATE LIMITED.,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Atri Papers Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Vs. Knp-C, Haridwar, Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aafcp1500J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance was made for non-furnishing of evidences for incurring of expenses and 3 therefore the AO has rightly initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 7. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book furnished before us. Perusal of the show- cause notice dated 22.12.2019 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A

GRAND LEGACY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap 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 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

section 270A of the Act. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 19.09.2025, confirmed the same. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld.AR submits that assessee was entitled for 03 types of subsidy:- (i) State Government subsidy

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

3: Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected, learned TPO / AO / DRP applied CUP method in an erroneous manner 3.1 Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions pertaining to intra-group services, the learned TPO / AO / DRP have erroneously selected CUP method and have applied the same in an erroneous manner

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

3: Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected, learned TPO / AO / DRP applied CUP method in an erroneous manner 3.1 Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions pertaining to intra-group services, the learned TPO / AO / DRP have erroneously selected CUP method and have applied the same in an erroneous manner

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

270A of the Act is grossly\nerroneous in as much as there has not been any under-reporting of\nincome by the Appellant.\nPage | 3\nITA No.69/DDN/2024\n5.\n6.\n7.\n8.\nThat on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the levy of\ninterest under section 234A of the Act is erroneous and illegal in as\nmuch

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

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

3: Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected, learned TPO / AO / DRP applied CUP method in an erroneous manner 3.1 Without prejudice that TNMM should be selected as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions pertaining to intra- group services, the learned TPO / AO / DRP have erroneously selected CUP method and have applied the same in an erroneous manner

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering