HOTEL SAURAB,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ratio of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

3)/147 dated 25/02/2015 is merely 'change in opinion'. The action of the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 5. That the levy of interest under section 234A/B/C and 234D is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the intention of penalty proceedings us 271

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3\n8. The assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs CIT [1998] 229 ITR\n338 (SC) and CIT vs Sinhgad Technical Education society\n[2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) and requested for the admission of the\nsame.\n9. After considering the submissions of the assessee and looking

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]

penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter- linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3\nITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024\n8.\nThe assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs CIT [1998] 229 ITR\n338 (SC) and CIT vs Sinhgad Technical Education society\n[2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) and requested for the admission of the\nsame.\n9.\nAfter considering the submissions of the assessee

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

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

section 234A/B/C and 234D is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the intention of penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

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

section 234A/B/C and 234D is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the intention of penalty proceedings u/s 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

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.

3. Grounds raised in both appeals are almost similar challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessments and 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

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.

3. Grounds raised in both appeals are almost similar challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessments and 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

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 :

271(1(c) of the Act for AY 2013-14 respectively. ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are common, interlinked and arising as a result of survey action thus, all these appeals have been heard together and adjudicated by this common order. First

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 :

271(1(c) of the Act for AY 2013-14 respectively. ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are common, interlinked and arising as a result of survey action thus, all these appeals have been heard together and adjudicated by this common order. First

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 :

271(1(c) of the Act for AY 2013-14 respectively. ITA Nos.90, 95 & 104/DDN/2024 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are common, interlinked and arising as a result of survey action thus, all these appeals have been heard together and adjudicated by this common order. First

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

10 of AS-9 \"revenue\nrecognition\" which states that if at the time of raising of any claim for\nrevenue from sales or service transactions, it is un-reasonable to expect\nultimate collection, revenue recognition should be postponed\"\nGuidance note on accrual basis of accounting issued by ICAI vindicates the\nabove view as under: \"4.5 Recognition of revenue requires that

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.

Section. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the 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