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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, it appealed before the Tribunal. Now, we have been tasked to decide this appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the State Government, vide GO No.152/9-A-1-1998 dated 15.01.1998, authorized

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, it appealed before the Tribunal. Now, we have been tasked to decide this appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the State Government, vide GO No.152/9-A-1-1998 dated 15.01.1998, authorized

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an 8 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 assessee , being a nonresident, engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils, a sum equal

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (INDIA) LTD., DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 37 (1) of the act . Now it needs to be examined, whether the Assessee has incurred expenditure for the purposes of its business or not. The Assessee has stated that it has incurred such expenditure having regard to its standard of operation and the quality of execution work, safety of its employees in the environment. These expenses are required

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

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) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.8,19,265/- on accrual basis 4. The facts of the case giving rise to these

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

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) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.8,19,265/- on accrual basis 4. The facts of the case giving rise to these

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

1) ,in holding that relief could not be sought for arrears of salary or receipt of salary in advance, when relief was claimed under Sec 10(10)C( on account of amendment in Law) 2.1 That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs 2,41,874, as the amount had not been received

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 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account of bogus

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 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account of bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan PAN: AALFC2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. S.K. Ahuja, AR Department by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.05.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

ANAND FOODS,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 141/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Anand Foods, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Matta Garg & Co., Ward-2(2)(1), 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Kashipur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablfa3643B Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1077083626(1) Dated 10.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

disallowing it’s section 80IB(11A) deduction claim of Rs.79,97,988/-, we notice that the sole reason thereof appears 2 Anand Foods to be non-filing/submission of it’s Form 10CCB tax audit report on or before the prescribed due date. 4. Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had filed/uploaded the above

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

41,04,315 was disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income Rs. 1,26,500/- Business Income Rs. 50,70,340/- Income from other sources Rs. 7,967/- Taxable Income Rs. 52,04,810/-” Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Dehradun, who vide

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

41,04,315 was disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income Rs. 1,26,500/- Business Income Rs. 50,70,340/- Income from other sources Rs. 7,967/- Taxable Income Rs. 52,04,810/-” Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Dehradun, who vide

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. HOTEL SURBHI PALACE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 21/04/2021 by assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 11,17,16,165/- by disallowing a sum of Rs. 41,77,095/- u/s 35D of the Act, Rs. 34,070/- on account of interest on delayed payment of service

SBL PVT. LTD.,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.540/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Sbl Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Iie, Sidcul, Plot No.3, Vs. Office Of Commissioner Sector-12, Ranipur, Haridwar, Of Income Tax, Uttarakhand. Dehradun. Pan No Aaics9462M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1 I.T.A. No. 540/Del/2017 Assessing Officer in denying the benefit of section 80 IC is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and uncalled for. 2. Alternatively, his action in not accepting assessee’s plea that scrap has been derived by manufacturing or its sale is a reimbursement of packing cost incurred and thus benefit of section 80 IC is allowable is unjust

ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL,MANPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

1) which do not hold any evidentiary value. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the fact that the Ld. AO has made addition under section 69C without disputing the corresponding sale transactions which are borne out of the very same purchases. 11. In the facts

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

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

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

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

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past