MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

30,000 Cash 4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

30,000 Cash 4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

30,000 Cash 4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

30,000 Cash 4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

30,000 Cash 4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.17,51,912/- being 30

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 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.17,51,912/- being 30

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

30% disallowance for payments to non-residents). 57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between the disallowance computed under section

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

30% disallowance for payments to non-residents). 57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between the disallowance computed under section

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.15,29,05,345/- making following additions and disallowances; Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. S. N. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80IC 21,03,842/- to 30

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.15,29,05,345/- making following additions and disallowances; Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. S. N. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80IC 21,03,842/- to 30

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- 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 Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

section 201(1) of the Act and he therefore confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,58,559/- being 30% of the interest

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

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

30-8-2011. 42. In view of the above discussion and relying on the above mentioned decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, we hold that the returns filed by the assessees under section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under section 139(1) by virtue of the law stated in section 153A

BHUPENDRA BORA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

30-6-2020 and also filed Form No. 67 as a necessary proof of taxes paid in Netherlands on the income tax portal account on 23-06-2020. Since this Form No. 67 was not filed by the assessee within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act and was ultimately filed within the due date prescribed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR vs. NAINI TISSUES LTD, U S NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowed on similar grounds in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O, therefore, restricted the deduction under section 80IC at 30

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

30,000/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the other additions/disallowances were challenged. Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions/disallowance made and further, accepted the contention of the assessee that the additional income offered at INR 3.89 crores was business income as against unexplained money

EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, DEHRADUN

In the result ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiexpress Drilling Systems Llc, Vs. Dict International Taxation, C/O. Nangia & Co, Circle-1, Dehradun A-109, Sector-136, Noida Pan: Aabce6891R (Appellant (Respondent)

section 201(1) being not met by the appellant. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) did not take cognizance of the fact that in the Assessment Order passed, the AO categorically mentioned the submission of Form 26A as per rule 31ACB of the Income-tax Rules by the appellant. GROUND NO. 2 On the facts and circumstances