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

70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “The plain

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

70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “The plain

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

70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “The plain

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

70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “The plain

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

70,600/ which is quite usual as thereafter Income Tax also provide 5% for the purpose of computing profits and gain from transfer of such asset. 8. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the 20% disallowance of expenses on ad-hoc basis without pin pointing out any voucher and without rejecting the books of account is unwarranted

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

3 Laksar Co. Operative Cane Dev. Union Ltd. apparent from the record; therefore, the same could not be rectified under section 154 of the Act as the mistake pointed out by the assessee could be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on the point. 3.2 Aggrieved with the rejection of rectification application under section

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

70,527/-. The balance amount of assessee's claim of expenses, is therefore, disallowed. The assessee's explanation with regard to this disallowance was not found acceptable as per the provisions of I.T. Act and vide reply dated 16.11.2015 assessee has stated that "if any disallowance is to be made, the same should be restricted to Rs.10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

3-7-2012 wherein it was held that "In the facts of above case the assessee was an exporter. The issue was regarding sale of Rs. 70 lacs included in turn-over which was more than 500 crores. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 69 of the Act, is grossly arbitrary, totally erroneous and wholly uncalled for. 5. After considering the detailed submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “5. Decision I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. AO and the submission

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3,25,82,569/- which have been listed at para 5 of the assessment order. It was further noticed out of total expenses incurred at Rs. 24,34,70,741/-, which was debited to Profit & Loss A/c, the assessee had incurred expenses on account of cost of revenues, selling, general and administrative expenses and depreciation on total amount

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3,25,82,569/- which have been listed at para 5 of the assessment order. It was further noticed out of total expenses incurred at Rs. 24,34,70,741/-, which was debited to Profit & Loss A/c, the assessee had incurred expenses on account of cost of revenues, selling, general and administrative expenses and depreciation on total amount

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

3 to 3.2, the alternate ground No. 3.3 as taken by the Assessee become infructuous.” [Extracted Taxmann.com][underline supplied by us] Neither the Ld. Assessing Officer nor the Ld. Departmental Representative could press any other judicial precedent which shows that amount spent by the assessing is not allowable as revenue expenditure under section

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

70. 7. Ld. AR further drew our attention to the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 14.03.2022 by the AO wherein again AO has asked to provide the details of the transactions carried with these three persons namely Sh. Manoj Kumar, Dayanand Parasar and Sh. Pawan Mishra during the previous year under appeal and never referred to any transaction with

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

3 as taken by the Assessee become infructuous .” Neither the Ld . Assessing Officer nor the Ld. Departmental Representative could press any other judicial precedent which shows that amount spent by the assessing is not allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37 (1) of the act . It is al so not the argument of the revenue that such expenditure incurred

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.”

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on 22nd December 2006 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs 40,67,51,498/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. first appellate authority, vide order dated 30th December 2008, allowed part relief. Assessee filed a further appeal before this Tribunal

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) without appreciating the facts brought on record for the instant year. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit inspite