DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

90,630/- under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.15,29,05,345/- making following additions and disallowances

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

90,630/- under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.15,29,05,345/- making following additions and disallowances

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

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

90(2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should be applied;  Further, the appellant has also drawn attention to the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. TVS Electronics (Supra) has been overruled

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

90(2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should be applied;  Further, the appellant has also drawn attention to the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. TVS Electronics (Supra) has been overruled

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

90(2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should be applied;  Further, the appellant has also drawn attention to the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. TVS Electronics (Supra) has been overruled

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.2,81,90,744/- and Rs.4,20,03,868/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the payments

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.2,81,90,744/- and Rs.4,20,03,868/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the payments

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 14.05.2013 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.21,32,33,040/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,54,85,276/- out of administrative and other charges, professional and technical services and sub- contract charges of Rs.7

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F of Rs 1,90,86,224/-. 4. That on facts and in law the AO and CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that conditions prescribed in clause (a) to proviso of section

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

90,42,19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S JAI PRAKASH POWER VENTURE LTD., H.P.

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

90,42,19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,,H.P. vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

90,42,19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

90,42,19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SUBHASH ROAD vs. UJVN LIMITED, GMS ROAD

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

90,94,116/- on account of employees'\ncontribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va), is bad in law and against the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and the same is outside the purview of section 143(1) of the\nAct.\n4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S UJVN LIMITED ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTARAKHAND

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

90,94,116/- on account of employees'\ncontribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va), is bad in law and against the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and the same is outside the purview of section 143(1) of the\nAct.\n4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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 THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 80 IA, the same\nis taxed without any real income. Ld. AR thus, requests that deduction\nu/s 80IA of the Act on these items of income deserves to be allowed.\n11. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of\nthe lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned\norder wherein items on which

SAURAV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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] Saurav Malik Vs Ito 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 Pan-Bdypm6527J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025

90,89,685/- by holding the cash credited in his bank accounts as his undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which stood dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowing the cost of improvement to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only on the ground that, one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against the enquiry letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had provided all the documentary evidences which have