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

section 40A(3) clearly says that “Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or agreegate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure

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

section 40A(3) clearly says that “Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or agreegate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure

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

section 40A(3) clearly says that “Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or agreegate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure

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

section 40A(3) clearly says that “Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or agreegate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure

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

section 40A(3) clearly says that “Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or agreegate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure

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:-

section 69 are not applicable and the error is an accounting/clerical error which occurred in the very first year. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

disallowance made by the AO. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed. 12. Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue are with respect to the findings of ld. CIT(A) in disregarding the action of AO in treating the additional income of INR 3.89 crores offered during the course of survey on account

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

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

disallowing the source of investment of ₹ 8 19400 in the plot of land. c. That the Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in not allowing exemption under section 54 for the residential house constructed by the appellant out of the sale proceeds of the residential house/loan from the bank within the time allowed under section 54 of the income

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.

section 133(6) of the Act in respect of the persons/entities from whom the assessee had purchased the goods, revealed that the assessee has inflated his purchases by Rs.3,69,73,180/-. Accordingly, he added back the said amount to the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding assessee

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 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

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 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

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

69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in assessee's name in balance sheet of respective companies exercised revisionary powers and passed an order without giving an opportunity

SHREEVAAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

69 of the Act, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will automatically come into play, which debars the assessee from claiming set off of expenses or loss against surrendered income. Accordingly, he disallowed

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

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 the point on the quantification aspect thereof that some of the corresponding cheques had bever been encashed during the land transaction in question. 8. The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, is that there

NEERAJ SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT ACIT CEN CIR , DDN , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

section 69 and adding them to the income, despite the fact that they cannot be directly associated with the assessee's business or were not claimed in the duly submitted and department-accepted books of accounts, due to the Respondent's dissatisfaction with the Appellant's submissions, and further upholding the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, makes

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.”

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the depreciation of fixed assets transferred from UPJVNL for AY 2012-13, works out to Rs.4,13,68,564/- and these were transferred after the bifurcation from UPJVNL to UJVNL. It was submitted that the Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (UJVNL) was incorporated

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions