M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Business or Profession\" or \"Income From\nOther Sources\" shall be computed in accordance with the mercantile or\ncash system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and shall\nbe subject to the income computation and disclosure standards (ICDS)\nnotified by the government. Under ICDS-4 notified u/s 145 of the Act,\n\"realization certainty\" is the necessary predicament for recognition

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order as affirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and void-ab-initio as the approval granted u/s 151 is illegal and mechanical in nature. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well

SH.SANJAY RAWAT,,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order as affirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and void-ab-initio as the approval granted u/s 151 is illegal and mechanical in nature. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CRICLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order as affirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal and void-ab-initio as the approval granted u/s 151 is illegal and mechanical in nature. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, is also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment.” 4. As against the assessment order dated 28/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 26/03/2015 dismissed the appeal by upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. 5. Aggrieved

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, is also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment.” 4. As against the assessment order dated 28/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 26/03/2015 dismissed the appeal by upholding the addition made by the Ld. A.O. 5. Aggrieved

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

business and residential premises of the assessee on 14/07/2010 in the Mahadev Builders and Properties group of cases. A notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 05/03/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. In response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessee submitted return of income declaring income

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

business and residential premises of the assessee on 14/07/2010 in the Mahadev Builders and Properties group of cases. A notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 05/03/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. In response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act, the assessee submitted return of income declaring income

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act. 3.2. The Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of his income. 3.3. The Appellant had fully co-operated

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act. 3.2. The Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of his income. 3.3. The Appellant had fully co-operated

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LIMIED.,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.2 In appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs.1,12,80,692/- made in both years, which was challenged by the appellant assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel; at outset, submitted that the interest shown as payable in the Profit & Loss

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LIMITED,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.2 In appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs.1,12,80,692/- made in both years, which was challenged by the appellant assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel; at outset, submitted that the interest shown as payable in the Profit & Loss

RAJU VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Raju Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 17/1 Curzon Road, Kotdwar Dehradun (Uttrakhand) (Uttrakhand) Pin 248 001 Pan No. Abipv8176F (Appellant) (Respondent)

business and residential premises of the assessee on 14.03.2012 at the Punjab Jewellers Group of cases. The assessee furnished his return of income on 28.03.2013 declaring total income at Rs.3,29,350/-. During appellate proceedings in Appeal, Ld. CIT(A)-2, Agra, income of the assessee was enhanced. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED, GADARPUR,GADARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises it’s sole substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.54,56,853/- in the Assessing 2 Kisan Sahkari Chini

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AO. has erred in acknowledging the fact that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the addition made to warrant levy of penalty." 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a detailed submission as under: “Ground