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

section 115BBE of the Act of getting taxed at a higher rate, the assessee chose to file revised return on 13.12.2018, wherein, the assessee distributed the additional income of Rs.74,96,096/- to all the assessment years commencing from assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18. Accordingly, the additional income offered by him in the revised return filed

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

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

Section 80IC of the Act on the ground that the Assessee failed to substantiate that the manufacturing was actually being done at Haridwar unit of the Assessee. 3. It is pertinent to note that, the Assessee approached Hon'ble High Court on the issue of disallowance made on the Duty Draw Back and during the pendency of the proceedings before

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

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

disallowance of exemption under section 54 of the income tax act is devoid of any merit. He submitted that assessee has sold the property for ₹ 10 lakhs on 3/1/2009. The land was purchased by the assessee for ₹ 8 19400 on 7/10/2008 and c== house was constructed in FY 2009-10. He showed the withdrawal made by the assessee from

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

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

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

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

96,00,820/- in its profit and loss account and business income of Rs. 1,86,97,157/- under normal provisions of the Act in the income tax which works to 24.36% of gross receipts. Now the question arises that whether the assessee though falling under the ambit of provisions of section 44BB of the Act, but earning income above

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

disallowance of expenses on various grounds. The assessee pleaded before the ld AO that its income from the execution of the two contracts should be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. The assessee also gave detailed note on contract income earned by it with ONGC, Petrogas E&P LLC. As under:- 3.0 Detailed

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

disallowed the claim of the assessee being part of the Income-tax which is not an allowable deduction. 23. Before us, ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chambal Fertilizersand Chemicals Ltd. vs. JCIT reported in107 Tamann.com 484 has held that Education Cess is an allowable deduction while computing

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

96,755/- by making addition of INR 55.00 Lakhs towards bogus advances and INR 14,13,600/- as deemed income and further disallowance of expenses of INR 78,80,905/- was made. 3. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 08.07.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte

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:-

96,389/- 1,18,73,198/- Office 10% 90,97,325/- 1,24,163/- 18,85,296/- 0 1,11,06,784/- 10,16,413/- 1,00,90,371/- Equipments Others 51,24,453/- 0 27,63,811 /- 27,76,846/ 65,76,110/- 0 65,76,110/- Total

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.

96,09,382/- and MAT of INR 1,67,52,32,236/- was paid. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and 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