MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

Disallowance Tax has overlooked that entries as recorded in the books of accounts of M/s India Glycols Ltd were as such findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in disregard of the receipts is highly arbitrary, unjustified and not tenable. 3.4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in any case could not have proceeded to deny

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 37(1) of the Act. 43. The assessee invites attention to the Annexure of the Audit report for the year under consideration submitted during the course of assessment proceedings for the captioned year, in which it is opined that the method of accounting of the appellant with respect to inventory is proper. The independent auditor in his report

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 37(1) of the Act. 43. The assessee invites attention to the Annexure of the Audit report for the year under consideration submitted during the course of assessment proceedings for the captioned year, in which it is opined that the method of accounting of the appellant with respect to inventory is proper. The independent auditor in his report

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 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 10: Disallowance of depreciation 10.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,14,46

AJAY THAKUR ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1)1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

46,500/- in very terms. 3 | P a g e 7. Learned counsel submits that the assessee’s second substantive issue canvassed in the instant appeal challenges both the lower authorities’ action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.12 lakhs which has been held liable to be assessed under section 115BBE of the Act. He seeks to buttress

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

46,160- was disallowed by the AO in the original assessment order dated 30.3.2005. Therefore, out of Rs. 1114.68 lacs, Rs. 834.22 lacs already stood disallowed in the original assessment order. The balance amount represented actual write off which was palpably clear from page 2 of the impugned order itself. No deduction on account of any such provision was, therefore

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46,384l- against Rs. 60,51,32,172/- 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

46,384l- against Rs. 60,51,32,172/- 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

SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

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

46,72,000/- by treating the same as residential and thus made the addition of the differential value of Rs.30,14,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Besides this adhoc disallowance

ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

46,69,080/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s. 11 and 12 as well as section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Aggrieved by the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1), the assessee filed petition u/s. 154 of the Act with the Income-tax Officer (Exemption) whereby the Assessing Officer made

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. PAN No. AABCE6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Amit Arora, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Mayank Kumar, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 21.08.2023 26.09.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on I.T.A.No.6114/Del/2017 & CO No. 13/Del/2018 आदेश

M/S. RASAYANA HOTEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2010-11

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IC of the Income-tax Act. He has pointed out that this issue was considered and decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 11.10.2017. Thus, he has pleaded that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal

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

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

disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings

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

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

disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings