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

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

67,33,505/- and accordingly, proceeded to disallow the same as not allowable expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order. Pursuant to the directions of the ld DRP, this disallowance was MB Petroleum Services LLC reduced to Rs. 9,41,400/- on the ground that assessee could not produce the bill No. 161 dated

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

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

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

section 37(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year . 53 . The ld . CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld . AO/TPO. 54 . After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing

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

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

disallowing inventory written off of Rs.6,54,60,721 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventory written off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account which has been audited by an independent auditor. Ground

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

disallowing inventory written off of Rs.6,54,60,721 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventory written off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account which has been audited by an independent auditor. Ground

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 37(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year. 53. The ld. CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld. AO/TPO. 54. After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing

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

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

M/S. ALLIED GLASSES,ROORKEE vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Allied Glasses, C/O Tilak Raj & Versus Principal Cit, Associates, Gandhi Vatika, Dehradun Roorkee. Pan: Aamfa7220L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Tilak Raj, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal, Assailing The Order

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act in respect of interest income. Accordingly, he completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Post completion of assessment, learned PCIT received a proposal from Income-tax Officer ward 1, Roorkee for revising the assessment order u/s. 263 of the Act, reason being, deduction u/s. 80IC

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.”

1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had further held 3 that as per Explanation 4 of section 2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it was seen that the assessee had failed to comply with the terms, as the order of the Govt, of India, Ministry of Power dated 05.11.2001 was not a Gazette Notification

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED, GADARPUR,GADARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

67,222/- which has attained finality. Both the learned lower authorities hold in this factual backdrop that the above disallowance is an instance of concealment of income at the assessee’s behest attracting section 271(1

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

67,367/- claimed by the Assessee was disallowed and added back to the income of the Assessee vide assessment order dated 21-03-2013. Consequent to the assessment order, penalty proceedings has been initiated against the assessee and penalty order came to be passed under section 217(1

METRO FROZEN FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Metro Frozen Fruits & Dcit, Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. Circle Haridwar, Plot No.22, Rajpur, Vs Uttarakhan Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, Uttrakhand Pan-Aaecm4521F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Piyush Kuchhal, Fca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am, This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

1,00,90,371/-). Thus the effect of the above exercise is that the value of relevant assets (machinery and office equipments) has been inflated by the assessee by a sum of Rs. 86,47,500/- (61,80,274/- + 24,67,226/-). This is nothing but unexplained investment in various assets by the assessee

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)

disallowed. Accordingly, income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 38,67,996/- against the returned income as per the revised return of income at Rs. 37,17,350/-. The Ld.CIT(A) by considering the relevant provision u/s 10(1) & 10(10C) of the Act, found that claim made by the assessee is genuine and based on bonafide ground even