ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50,442/- on Government loans/ advances (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.65,56,936/- on earmarked fund (iv) Disallowance of interest under section 14A. (v

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act. (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.50,50,442/- on Government loans/ advances (iii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.65,56,936/- on earmarked fund (iv) Disallowance of interest under section 14A. (v

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

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 144B of the Act is void-ab-initio as the assessment was undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in law by enhancing

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

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 144B of the Act is void-ab-initio as the assessment was undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in law by enhancing

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

36,790/- and claimed relief under Section 90/ 90A of the Act on account of foreign tax credit of Rs. 5,72,956/-. The said revised return was also processed by the Learned CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act on 21-04-2021 accepting the returned income. However, the Learned CPC did not give the relief for foreign

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

v . Corporation Bank Limited (174 ITR 616). 52 . In view of the above binding precedents, the AO ought to be directed to accept the opening WDV of assets as submitted by the appellant in the schedule to computation of income which is arrived from the closing WDV of fixed assets of previous year. Accordingly , the AO be directed to delete

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

36. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019) and 2017-18 (ITA No.5/DDN/2022) allowed these expenses and hence we decline to deviate from the earlier orders of the Tribunal. Depreciation

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

36. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019) and 2017-18 (ITA No.5/DDN/2022) allowed these expenses and hence we decline to deviate from the earlier orders of the Tribunal. Depreciation

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

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC), where it was held that affidavits,\nunless disproved, must be accepted as valid evidence. The copy of case law is\nattached in Annexure-B for your reference. In this case, the tax authorities have not\nproduced any contrary evidence to disprove the affidavits. Therefore, the addition of Rs.\n1,74,709/- is without

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

36,030/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, treating the entire deposit as undisclosed income under Section 69A. The appellant disputes this addition on the following grounds: The AO failed to bifurcate the deposited cash between old and new currency. A certificate from the bank indicates that the Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposited were much lower