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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

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

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

79,953/- as per section 14A.” ITA No. 2300/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in 2 ITA No.2299, 2300.Del.2017 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain confirming the addition of Rs. 90,702/- as per Section 14A.” 3. The only issue involved in this case is disallowance

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

79,953/- as per section 14A.” ITA No. 2300/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in 2 ITA No.2299, 2300.Del.2017 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jain confirming the addition of Rs. 90,702/- as per Section 14A.” 3. The only issue involved in this case is disallowance

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

79,440/- and the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

79,440/- and the disallowance of Rs. 10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

79,97,240/- (in dispute), (kindly see page 2 of AO order and page 7 of PB for Income Tax Return). 2. The learned AO, denied deduction under section 54B of the Act on the solitary basis that “assessee has not been able to substantiate agricultural activities being carried out by assessee for immediately preceding two years ”, and as such

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowing the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous.” 8. It is an undisputed fact that the payee/ remittee do not have a PE in India. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the impugned issue in great detail in para 7.1 to para 7.4 of his appellate order qua the nature of service agreement

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowing the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous.” 8. It is an undisputed fact that the payee/ remittee do not have a PE in India. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the impugned issue in great detail in para 7.1 to para 7.4 of his appellate order qua the nature of service agreement

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowing the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous.” 8. It is an undisputed fact that the payee/ remittee do not have a PE in India. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the impugned issue in great detail in para 7.1 to para 7.4 of his appellate order qua the nature of service agreement

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of cash deposit of Rs 19,79,000 into bank during demonetization period since this amount has been deposited out of sale proceeds of jewelry and garments. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the addition made by the Ld. AO solely on the basis

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

79,59,986/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in terms of the said Section. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order U/s 143(3)/147 dated 25/02/2015 is merely 'change in opinion'. The action of the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was wholly unreasonable, uncalled

ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowed deduction u/s 80IA on the interest income on land premium at Rs.15,79,11,665/-. 10. Ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the finding of the Assessing Officer and based on the decision for the A.Y. 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. While deleting the addition the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision in his order

ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowed deduction u/s 80IA on the interest income on land premium at Rs.15,79,11,665/-. 10. Ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the finding of the Assessing Officer and based on the decision for the A.Y. 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. While deleting the addition the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision in his order

ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowed deduction u/s 80IA on the interest income on land premium at Rs.15,79,11,665/-. 10. Ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the finding of the Assessing Officer and based on the decision for the A.Y. 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. While deleting the addition the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision in his order

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

disallowance out of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act to the extent of INR 211,15,54,378/- and further making addition of INR 245,79,21,900/- on account of late payment surcharge on outstanding debtors for the period of 10 months holding the same as taxable on accrual basis and no deduction u/s 80IA was allowed