ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

9. The next issue is in respect of shrinkage/shortage of Rs. 8,88,523/- disallowed by the AO in respect of Petrochemical Division of the assessee. The AO has disallowed the claim of Rs. 8,88,523/- only on the reasoning that the same is more than the permitted limit by the Indian Country Corporation. No other reasoning was mentioned

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

9. The next issue is in respect of shrinkage/shortage of Rs. 8,88,523/- disallowed by the AO in respect of Petrochemical Division of the assessee. The AO has disallowed the claim of Rs. 8,88,523/- only on the reasoning that the same is more than the permitted limit by the Indian Country Corporation. No other reasoning was mentioned

ATRI PAPERS, PRIVATE LIMITED.,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Atri Papers Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Vs. Knp-C, Haridwar, Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aafcp1500J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance was made for non-furnishing of evidences for incurring of expenses and 3 therefore the AO has rightly initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 7. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book furnished before us. Perusal of the show- cause notice dated 22.12.2019 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A

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

sections 5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion hereinabove, it is concluded that the payment cannot be brought within the ambit of FTS, in the absence of an enabling Article

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

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

sections 5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion hereinabove, it is concluded that the payment cannot be brought within the ambit of FTS, in the absence of an enabling Article

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

sections 5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion hereinabove, it is concluded that the payment cannot be brought within the ambit of FTS, in the absence of an enabling Article

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of under section 80IA of the Act on the income derived from the excess provisions written back and the late payment surcharges on debtors was squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own cases for AYs 2008-09 to 2015-16 as mentioned in grounds of appeal; hence, this appeal

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

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

9: Disallowance of expenditure incurred on non-producing Production Sharing Contracts (“PSCs”) 9.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.49,37,84,218 incurred on non-producing PSCs. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that set off of expenditure of non- producing PSC against the income

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

9: Disallowance of expenditure incurred on non-producing Production Sharing Contracts (“PSCs”) 9.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.49,37,84,218 incurred on non-producing PSCs. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that set off of expenditure of non- producing PSC against the income

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

9. Per contra, it is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the issue relating to the disallowance under section

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act). We therefore, decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the taxability of Rs.40,09,123/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. This ground fails accordingly. 9

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

disallowed 6 | P a g e assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of interest income earned of Rs.2,20,813/-. In so far as insurance claim is concerned, it is observed that such claim is in respect of damages to the toughened glasses manufactured by the assessee. Whether the insurance claim received

GRAND LEGACY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

9) of section 270A of the Act. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 19.09.2025, confirmed the same. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld.AR submits that assessee was entitled for 03 types of subsidy:- (i) State

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

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 91, against the income-tax payable under this Act;" 9. It was submitted that the Board has power to prescribe procedure to granting FTC. However, the Board does not have power to prescribe a condition or provide for disallowance

BG INTERNATIONAL 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 and stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2017-18

9,31,09,974 Administrative and Geological & Geophysical and other expenses iii. Management 34,09,08,884 Service Unit Charges iv. IT Project Cost 128,07,33,360 Recharges Total 1,86,43,25,025 3 Stay No. 14/DDN/2020 3. It was claimed by the assessee that these receipts are in the nature of reimbursement and reduced the entire amount

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest paid on such loans. 9. The learned CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2011-12 to 2016-17 as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee had not paid the taxes and interest due as per the revised return filed by him on 13.12.2018. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeals before