ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. THDC INDIA LIMITED, TEHRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 80IA of the Act 2. Addition on account of late payment 280,34,10,000/- surcharge leviable on outstanding debtors as on 31.03.2017 3. Disallowance of provision of gratuity u/s 7

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both the parties and also the impugned order before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is a charitable trust, which is duly registered under Section 12A and accordingly its income and expenditure is computed in terms of section 11. The issue before us is whether the disallowance

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

7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 201 of the Act, no addition can be made on that account. 6. In so far as the disallowance of part of the expenses is concerned, assessee contended that their accounts are audited and nothing discrepancy was found and therefore, no such disallowance should have been made. 7

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 is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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 is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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

7. Having held so, for the sake of completeness, we deem it appropriate to deal with second contention of the assessee. Undisputedly, the assessment order has been revised under section 263 of the Act to disallow

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowing the claim of the appellant for deduction u/s 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") and confirming the addition of income of INR 1,84,28,269/- on account of deduction claimed under section 80IC as made by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 2, Dehradun

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be made under section 143(1) of the Act and (ii) the case laws relied upon by the assessee even after extracting the assessee’s written submission in the impugned order. 6. The grounds raised above clearly show that the Ld. CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the assessee

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

7) read with Section 80-IA(10) of the Act and still enhancing the business profit of the tax holiday entity (instead of reducing tax holiday deduction), leading to a dichotomy in its own approach. b. In doing so, AO also went against the order of the TPO which clearly stated that transfer pricing adjustment should be given effect

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

7) read with Section 80-IA(10) of the Act and still enhancing the business profit of the tax holiday entity (instead of reducing tax holiday deduction), leading to a dichotomy in its own approach. b. In doing so, AO also went against the order of the TPO which clearly stated that transfer pricing adjustment should be given effect

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. Briefly, the facts are, in course

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

7: Disallowance of head office expenditure 7.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in applying the provisions of section