EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 88,000,00/- 2. The CIT-A) did not appreciate the contention of the appellant while sustaining penalty and missed to note that disallowance

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

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

271(1) (C) of Rs. 1370000/- has been imposed against the assessee. (2) It is hereby submitted that penalty has been imposed against the Law & Fact of case while assessee has applied completion certificate as on 24.03.2012, but the H.D.A Haridwar has been issued compounding certificate, which is the nature of completion certificate since the extra floor which has constructed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 80 IA, the same\nis taxed without any real income. Ld. AR thus, requests that deduction\nu/s 80IA of the Act on these items of income deserves to be allowed.\n11. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of\nthe lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned\norder wherein items on which

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

disallowed and assessment is completed on total income of Rs.6,79,59,986/-accordingly. Issue notice of demand. Charge interest u/s 234A/B/C. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

disallowed as bogus expense claimed and being added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated

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

disallowed as bogus expense claimed and being added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated

M/S. SARASWATI DYNAMICS PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saraswati Dynamics Acit Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haridwar C-7, Industrial Estate, Roorkee Pan No.Aaecs6262M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income| thereby concealing his income.) (Addition 1,31,95,362/-) 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO in denying the deduction u/s. 80IC in respect of AMC and repair charges, Job work, duty draw back interest and miscellaneous income

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues for both the appeals are similar in nature. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 13/DDN/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16: “The Appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues for both the appeals are similar in nature. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 13/DDN/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16: “The Appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation

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

UTTARANCHAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 165/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Uttaranchal Cooperative Sugar Vs Joint Commissioner Of Factories Federation Ltd., Income Tax, Dehradun Jogiwala, Near Railway Crossing, Uttarakhand-248001 Badripur, Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7713K Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Kishore, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/10769767588(1) Dated 12.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

u/s 271(1)(c) 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 both the learned lower authorities respective findings have held the assessee to have concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby levying the impugned penalty amounting to Rs.7

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

u/s. 144C(5)of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 1.1. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing

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