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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17,57

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17,57

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17,57

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 2.3 That the aforesaid disallowance made and sustained u/s 40A (3) of the Act is covered under Rule 6DD and as such, disallowance made is arbitrary and untenable.” 3.0 All the aforesaid grounds essentially relate to the validity of disallowance of Rs. 17,57

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between the disallowance computed under section

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

57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between the disallowance computed under section

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

57,33,780/- 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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

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

Section 147/143(3) of the Act by making disallowance of Rs. 13,98,31,925/- on the ground that Duty Draw Back occurred during the year cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, further disallowed Rs. 51,27,57

ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), NEW DELHI vs. LAXMI ELECTRONICS, , HARIDQAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Laxmi Electronics, F-32, Ward 1(3)(2), New Delhi. Industrial Area, Haridwar. Pan:Aacfl6648R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2017 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Agra (Camp At Dehradun) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In Ground No.1, The Revenue Has Challenged Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,57,71,163/- On Account Of Unconfirmed Purchases.

57,71,163/- on account of unconfirmed purchases. 3. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the manufacturing of PCB/electronic items. In the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 24.09.2009 declaring nil income after claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Income

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 144C(13)of the Income-tax Act (“the Act” for short) in pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 28.02.2020 passed u/s. 144C(5)of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,,H.P. vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S JAI PRAKASH POWER VENTURE LTD., H.P.

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business has a cost. The cost of borrowing from the bank is known to the business depending on the rate of interest but that does not mean that the capital introduced in the form of shareholders fund has no cost. In the present

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

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Was Partly

57,86,300/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in making the impugned addition by not treating hotel business as a component or part and parcel of ‘Eco- Tourism’ activity/project. M/s Rasayana Hotel Vs. ITO 8. That the impugned