ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. SEABIRD EXPLORATION FZ-LLC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

addition on account of income @ 10 % computed u/s 44BB of the Act and delete the adjustment proposed by TPO. Accordingly, total income was assessed at INR 16,87,46,765/- in terms of order passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act. AO further initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAJU VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

additions leading to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were on account of interest on the balance standing in the foreign bank account of the Assessee. It is a fact on return of income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

Addition of Rs. 75,00,000/-) The assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has concealed particulars of income, hence the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271

SH.MOHIT BATOLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

addition of INR 27,66,635/-; INR 1,26,41,300/- and INR 4,12,050/- against returned income of INR 12,72,956/-. Thereafter, the impugned order of penalty u/s 271

SHRI PURAN CHAN & CO.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CC-DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

penalty has been\npassed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in\nconsequent to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on\n28/12/2018. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the Assessee preferred\nan Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated\n17/01/2024, deleted certain additions

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD. , I.T. PARK, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

addition made by AO in assessment order and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6.2 AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income

HARISH CHANDRA BATRA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

addition, penalty of Rs.7,00,000 u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO. 3. We find that the page no. 11, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that “issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).” 4. We also find that the para no. 5 of the penalty order dated10.02.2015 reads as under: ITA No.4082.Del.2017 2 Harish Chandra

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

additional income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and paid due taxes thereon with applicable interest. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued only to regularise the said revised return filed on 29.11.2016. Ultimately in the reassessment proceedings, the revised income filed on 29.11.2016 was accepted by the ld AO and penalty proceeding u/s 271

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

additional ground of appeal\nand quashed the assessment order passed u/s 148 of the Act. The\nother grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are taken on merits\nbecame academic.\n19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nITA No.78/DDN/2024 [AY 2014-15]\n20. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the penalty\norder u/s 271

M/S. KOHLI REATORS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2011-12

additions made by the Assessing Officer against which penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act has been

MRS. NIDHI YADAV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

additions as under: - “A. That section 69A is not applicable on the appellant as the appellant is in receipt of the source of credit entries as appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant. B. That reopening of assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act based on investigation wing report is bad in law.” 4. The relevant

SMT. NIDHI YADAV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO- W-2(1)(4),, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

additions as under: - “A. That section 69A is not applicable on the appellant as the appellant is in receipt of the source of credit entries as appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant. B. That reopening of assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act based on investigation wing report is bad in law.” 4. The relevant

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

additional ground of appeal and quashed the assessment order passed u/s 148 of the Act. The other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are taken on merits became academic. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.78/DDN/2024 [AY 2014-15] 20. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the penalty order u/s 271