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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is\npremature at this stage and thus, dismissed.\nPage | 17\nITA No.69/DDN/2024\n24 Ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is with respect to\ncharging of interest u/s 234A whereas the assessee though the return\nof income was filed within the extended due date.\n25. Heard both the parties

U.C. JAIN & SONS,HARIDWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

deduction u/s 801B(10) for Rs. 4648472/- which was added back by the A.O in the A.Y 2012-13 due to no completion certificate has been issued by H.D.A Haridwar, which is the sanction Authority of the MAP & penalty u/s 271

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), DEHRADUN vs. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, NANITAL

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Haldwani Be Set Aside That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

penalty orders passing u/s 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.1,11,40,171/- without appreciating that assessee (deductor ) itself accepted that it had not deducted

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

penalty proceedings us 271(1)(c) are bad in law and not sustainable in law under the facts and circumstances of the case in so far as there was neither any willful concealment of income nor did the appellant furnish inaccurate particulars on income. 4. Brief facts of the case:- The only effective ground in the appeal is with respect