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

72. To conclude: i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04.” 5.3 Also

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

72. To conclude: i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04.” 5.3 Also

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

72. To conclude: i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04.” 5.3 Also

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

72. To conclude: i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04.” 5.3 Also

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

72. To conclude: i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04.” 5.3 Also

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

72. To conclude: i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04.” 5.3 Also

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

72,18,722/- and since the assessee failed to produce any supporting evidences/bills and vouchers in support of such claim, it would be reasonable to disallow 25% of such expenses. On this account, learned Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.18,04,680/-. Page 2 of 8 5. Aggrieved by such additions made by the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred

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

section 90 read with rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing Service tax input credit of INR 42,72

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing Service tax input credit of INR 42,72

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.”

section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was NIL. 2. The order of the ld.CIT(Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company incorporated on 12th February, 2001 by Government of Uttarakhand for management of running generating stations, development

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

disallowed the same u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order which was upheld by the ld DRP. 15. With the aforesaid observations the ld AO pursuant to the order of the ld DRP passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 30.01.2015 starting the computation of total

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. WINDLASS ENGINEERS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Windlass Engineers & Services Ward 2(5), Dehradun. Pvt. Ltd., 11A, Rajpur Road, Dehrdun. Pan: Aaacw6855C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Virendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2018

72,560/- representing difference due to foreign exchange fluctuation. 9. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, while computing deduction under section 80IC of the Act, the assessee had included the foreign exchange gain as part of its business profits. Being of the view that foreign exchange

SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

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

72,000/- by treating the same as residential and thus made the addition of the differential value of Rs.30,14,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Besides this adhoc 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

72,020/- which is less than the threshold limit of INR 50.00 as provided in section 194Q of the Act, therefore, the provisions of this section are not applicable. A clarification issued by the CBDT dated 13.06.2021 vide Circular No.13/2021 was also relied upon. Ld. CIT(A) after considering these facts and the circular of CBDT has deleted the disallowance

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:-

72,29,405/- 0 i .1- 77 477/_ Office 10% 1,25,57,597/- 18,75,357/- 1,39,468/- 0 14,50,269/- 1,31,22,153/- Equipments Others 34,74,877/- 30,47,272/- 4,27,605/- 4,27,605/- 0 0 0 Total

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

disallowance of Rs. 12,96,73,815/-made on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee for the period under consideration. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts that, it has failed to fully appreciate the energy analysis done by the AO in order to examine

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

disallowance of Rs. 12,96,73,815/-made on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee for the period under consideration. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts that, it has failed to fully appreciate the energy analysis done by the AO in order to examine