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

33,780/- Sugar Mills Lhaksar as per 26AS: iii. Interest on Income Tax refunds: Rs.30,285/- Total Rs.5,70,80,005/- The claim of deduction of Rs.5,70,80,005/- under section 80P of the Act was not allowed on the reasoning “In Schedule 80P, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) to (vii) cannot be more non speculative

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

33. Where the law has declared that all the provisions of the Income-tax Act will apply to the returns filed by an assessee in response to a notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 153A as if such return filed by the assessee was a return filed under section 139(1), there cannot be a dash of interpretation

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

disallowance of purchases of Rs 33,35,500/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us :- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT), under section

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

section 54B of the Act be allowed to assessee - appellant. ISSUE NO. 2 IS WITH REGARDS TO DENIAL OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF A SUM OF RS. 5,33,063/- 8. In this regards, it is most humbly submitted that the assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition of a sum of Rs. 31,26,815/-, out of which

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

33,505/- and accordingly, proceeded to disallow the same as not allowable expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order. Pursuant to the directions of the ld DRP, this disallowance was MB Petroleum Services LLC reduced to Rs. 9,41,400/- on the ground that assessee could not produce the bill No. 161 dated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33

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

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

33,08,000/- made under section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in real estate business. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee and other group entities, proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act were initiated. In course of assessment proceedings

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

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

33,08,000/- made under section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in real estate business. Pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted in case of the assessee and other group entities, proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act were initiated. In course of assessment proceedings

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 14.05.2013 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.21,32,33,040/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

disallowed and added back to its total income.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.03.2017, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.01.2024,allowed the appeal of the assessee.As against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present appeal. 5. The ld. DR submitted that

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

SAWINDER JEET SINGH KALER,NANITAL vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), , NANITAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Sawinder Jeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaler, Ward-2(3)(1), Gol Ghar, Mallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand Pan :Alypk9431G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. The assessee’s twin substantive grounds herein seek to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action, inter alia, disallowing his agricultural income of Rs.9

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 80 IA, the same\nis taxed without any real income. Ld. AR thus, requests that deduction\nu/s 80IA of the Act on these items of income deserves to be allowed.\n11. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of\nthe lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned\norder wherein items on which

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

33,50,000/- (hereinafter referred as "A") b. A partnership deed dated 05.12.2014 executed between the assessee and Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, having 50% share each. (hereinafter referred to as 'B') Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos.2336 & 117/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 5. With regard to the document referred in 'A' above, the assessee agreed to pay Rs. 2 crores

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

33,50,000/- (hereinafter referred as "A") b. A partnership deed dated 05.12.2014 executed between the assessee and Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, having 50% share each. (hereinafter referred to as 'B') Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos.2336 & 117/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 5. With regard to the document referred in 'A' above, the assessee agreed to pay Rs. 2 crores