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

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

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

92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), NEW DELHI vs. LAXMI ELECTRONICS, , HARIDQAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Laxmi Electronics, F-32, Ward 1(3)(2), New Delhi. Industrial Area, Haridwar. Pan:Aacfl6648R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2017 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Agra (Camp At Dehradun) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In Ground No.1, The Revenue Has Challenged Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,57,71,163/- On Account Of Unconfirmed Purchases.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. Briefly, the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.3,92

TAKNOR JHALA FRUITS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED,RISHIKESH, UTTRAKHAND vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA, CIT(A)-THREE, NOIDA AND ITO RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harsil Gangotri Fruits Vs. Cit(A)-3, Processing & Marketing Pvt. Noida Ltd., Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aacch9436Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Taknor Jhala Fruits Collection Vs. Cit(A)-3 & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Noida Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aaect2878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed these twin assessees’ respective unexplained purchases, treated their cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained followed by section 115JB addition of Rs.4,92

HARSIL GANGOTRI FRUITS PROCESSING AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA, CIT(A) NOIDA AND ITO RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harsil Gangotri Fruits Vs. Cit(A)-3, Processing & Marketing Pvt. Noida Ltd., Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aacch9436Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Taknor Jhala Fruits Collection Vs. Cit(A)-3 & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Noida Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aaect2878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed these twin assessees’ respective unexplained purchases, treated their cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained followed by section 115JB addition of Rs.4,92

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR vs. NAINI TISSUES LTD, U S NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowed on similar grounds in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O, therefore, restricted the deduction under section 80IC at 30% of the profits i.e., at Rs.11,03,96,671/- and the excess claim of deduction amounting to Rs.25,75,92

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

section 142(1) of the I.Tax Act, 1961, you are hereby required to submit your sale tax return for the F.Y. 2008-09, copies of road permit and „Bahati Form ‟ for the item claimed to be purchased from Meet enterprises. 2. Kindly furnish the detail of final order of VAT/Sale Tax, detail of penalty imposed by the Department, and detail

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

92,346 while taxing the same as income from other sources. The said interest paid is clearly deductable under Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest

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

92,346 while taxing the same as income from other sources. The said interest paid is clearly deductable under Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest

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

92,346 while taxing the same as income from other sources. The said interest paid is clearly deductable under Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest

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

92,346 while taxing the same as income from other sources. The said interest paid is clearly deductable under Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest

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

92,040/-. As against the assessment order, the assessee has instituted an appeal before the CIT(A) on 16/01/2019. As per Section 249 (2) of the Act, the appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT (A). The assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 352 days. The assessee has claimed that

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

92,040/-. As against the assessment order, the assessee has instituted an appeal before the CIT(A) on 16/01/2019. As per Section 249 (2) of the Act, the appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT (A). The assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 352 days. The assessee has claimed that

PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Ward 1(4) (1), Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, 249201, Uttarakhand Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Pan: Aldpd9616P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 Order

92,855/- was outstanding whereas the CIT(A) slated " since the source of the source is not prooed of a person zlho is separately assessed to tax therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs.1,3,74,000/-" and totally ignored the refund amount, the addition to the income is arbitrary and against the principal of accountancy. 5. That in facts