LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

d) period are delivery based, hence loss of Rs. 41,04,315 should be allowed to the assessee as normal business loss. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at or before the hearing of appeal.” 2. None appeared for the assessee in both the Appeals even after service

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

d) period are delivery based, hence loss of Rs. 41,04,315 should be allowed to the assessee as normal business loss. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at or before the hearing of appeal.” 2. None appeared for the assessee in both the Appeals even after service

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

4 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA Ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017. The Ld. AR thus, prayed for relief on this score. 5.1 As far as the second issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

4 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA Ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017. The Ld. AR thus, prayed for relief on this score. 5.1 As far as the second issue; i.e. the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 230/DDN/2024 for AY 2019-20, arises out of the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in appeal No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069963312(1) dated 25.10.2024 against the order of assessment passed

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4. Horticulture and agro-based industries such as (a) Sauces, ketchup, etc 21.03 15135 to 15137 and 5139 (b) Fruit juices and fruit pulp 2202.40 (c) Jams, jellies, vegetable juices, 20.01 puree, pickles, etc. (d) Preserved fruits and vegetables (e) Processing of fresh fruits vegetables including packaging (f) Processing, preservation, packaging of mushrooms 5. Food Processing Industry

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69A is found to be incorrect, and\n- no explanation is given in the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) that if the application of\nSection 69A by AO is found to be incorrect in the current case then under which\nsection the addition of Rs. 1,74,709/- can be sustained against the appellant.\n- most importantly, when

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

D-3, Shri Ram Apartments, Ward 1(3)(4),Roorkee Ashok Marg, Ram Nagar, Vs. Income Tax Office, Roorkee, Uttarakhand Civil Lines, Roorkee PAN: AADCC6205F Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellantby None Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 12/02/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal for the Assessment Year (hereinafter

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance of Rs. 10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay was that

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance of Rs. 10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay was that

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Dehradun dated 29.12.2016, for the A.Y. 2012-13 in appeal No. 37/CIT(A)/DDN/2015-16 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short). 2. Brief facts of the case

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II [hereinafter 1 I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2012 referred to CIT (Appeals)] Dehradun, dated 1.12.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL CO., BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15 Solar Turbines International Vs Dcit, Company (Singapore Branch Of Circle-2, Solar Turbines International International Taxation, Company, Usa), Dehradun. 14 Tractor Road, Singapore, C/O Delloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Deloitte Centre Anchorage- Ii, Richmond Road, Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs3585J Assessment Year: 2014-15

d) The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of the jurisdictional Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in the case of OSRAM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS [ITA 4052/Del/2015. 2. The assessee has raised the issue of levy of surcharge and education cess. This issue is no longer res integra as amended involved

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

D E R PER Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Dehradun, dated 09.06.2017. 2. At the time of creation of UJVNL, certain assets and liabilities had been transferred from UPJVNL vide Notification issued by the Govt. of India. The AO noticed that the assessee took over

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

D E R PER Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Dehradun, dated 09.06.2017. 2. At the time of creation of UJVNL, certain assets and liabilities had been transferred from UPJVNL vide Notification issued by the Govt. of India. The AO noticed that the assessee took over

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

D E R PER Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Dehradun, dated 09.06.2017. 2. At the time of creation of UJVNL, certain assets and liabilities had been transferred from UPJVNL vide Notification issued by the Govt. of India. The AO noticed that the assessee took over

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

D E R PER Dr. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Dehradun, dated 09.06.2017. 2. At the time of creation of UJVNL, certain assets and liabilities had been transferred from UPJVNL vide Notification issued by the Govt. of India. The AO noticed that the assessee took over