ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

disallowance of depreciation on the same as per section 32 of the IT. Act, 1961, read with section 43 which

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, a sum of Rs. 3,65,32,392/-has to be added to the income of the assessee. 4. Learned Assessing Officer further observed that there are vehicle running expenses to the tune of Rs. 72,18,722/- and since the assessee failed to produce any supporting evidences/bills and vouchers in support

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

32. How the requirement of section 139(1) is satisfied by filing a return under section 153A? This is assumed in the light of section 153A(1)(a), where it is stated that where a search is initiated under section 132, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

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

section 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

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

section 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

ANUJ KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Anuj Kumar Vs. Acit Dcit Central Circle, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Investigation Wing, Cross Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan: Aetpk0635A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Chatterjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

disallowance of Cash expenditure under Section 40A(3), given that the assessee was offering income under Section 44AD of the IT Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not pertinent. Despite this, the learned CIT(Appeals) displayed overenthusiasm in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the stringent provisions of Section

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

disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act MB Petroleum Services LLC or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication of additional ground for claim of income tax depreciation u/s 32

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTRANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 of the I.T. Act, which worked out at Rs. “YYYYY/-“as per provisional accounts produced by the assessee. 4. The instant appeal of the revenue involved only one issue of depreciation. Depreciation: 5. This issue stands adjudicated by the order of ITAT in ITA No.5724/Del/2015 dated31-05-2021. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced for ready

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 of the I.T. Act, which worked out at Rs. “YYYYY/-“as per provisional accounts produced by the assessee. 4. The appeals involved two issues namely 1) Depreciation 2) Prior Period expenses Depreciation: 5. This issue stands adjudicated by the order of ITAT in ITA No.5724/Del/2015 dated31-05-2021. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced for ready

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 of the I.T. Act, which worked out at Rs. “YYYYY/-“as per provisional accounts produced by the assessee. 4. The appeals involved two issues namely 1) Depreciation 2) Prior Period expenses Depreciation: 5. This issue stands adjudicated by the order of ITAT in ITA No.5724/Del/2015 dated31-05-2021. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced for ready

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 of the I.T. Act, which worked out at Rs. “YYYYY/-“as per provisional accounts produced by the assessee. 4. The appeals involved two issues namely 1) Depreciation 2) Prior Period expenses Depreciation: 5. This issue stands adjudicated by the order of ITAT in ITA No.5724/Del/2015 dated31-05-2021. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced for ready

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 of the I.T. Act, which worked out at Rs. “YYYYY/-“as per provisional accounts produced by the assessee. 4. The appeals involved two issues namely 1) Depreciation 2) Prior Period expenses Depreciation: 5. This issue stands adjudicated by the order of ITAT in ITA No.5724/Del/2015 dated31-05-2021. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced for ready

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

32 of the I.T. Act, which worked out at Rs. “YYYYY/-“as per provisional accounts produced by the assessee. 4. The appeals involved two issues namely 1) Depreciation 2) Prior Period expenses Depreciation: 5. This issue stands adjudicated by the order of ITAT in ITA No.5724/Del/2015 dated31-05-2021. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced for ready

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

32,252/-, learned AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,33,063/- @ 25% on ad-hoc basis (kindly see pages 2 to 4 of AO’s order). While doing so, learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee - appellant relevant documentary evidences in shape of valuer’s certificate, certifying the cost of improvement incurred by assessee - appellant

KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kumaon Brick Field, Ward-Khatima C./O- Adv. N.R. Goel, 32 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Afqpa1977B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

32 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN :AFQPA1977B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Department by Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Dehradun

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication of additional ground for claim of income tax depreciation u/s 32

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

32,172/- revenue recognized by assessee. 7. In the course of hearing the assessee has filed following reconciliation of revenue on the basis of percentage completion method: 8. Ld. Counsel submitted that in A.Y. 2007-08 the revenue was recognized on percentage completion method by assessee and the same was accepted by AO. Similarly

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

32,172/- revenue recognized by assessee. 7. In the course of hearing the assessee has filed following reconciliation of revenue on the basis of percentage completion method: 8. Ld. Counsel submitted that in A.Y. 2007-08 the revenue was recognized on percentage completion method by assessee and the same was accepted by AO. Similarly