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

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

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the notices issued for initiation of the penalty proceedings, we find that AO has not specified the limb of which the satisfaction is recorded for initiation of penalty proceedings. The assessee was not show caused to explain whether the penalty is going

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)

5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike off the irrelevant charge. For the sake

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)

5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike off the irrelevant charge. For the sake

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)

5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike off the irrelevant charge. For the sake

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

10(26BBB) of the I.T. Act is 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(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, inaccurate particulars of its income.” 5. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5\nITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi) and of the Co-ordinate\nBench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Nitin Jain vs ACIT in ITA\nNo.1775/Del/2024 order dated 07.03.2025.\n12. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently\nsupported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that\nnotice u/s 148 was sent on the e-mail

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

5\nITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024\nITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi) and of the Co-ordinate\n12. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently\nsupported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that\nnotice u/s 148 was sent on the e-mail ID of the assessee and\ntherefore the claim of the assessee that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5 pre-requisites that is to\nbe satisfied in toto in order to account for a contract with customer. One\nsuch pre- requisite is the probability of realisation of consideration which in\nturn depends upon the customer's ability and intention to pay. Prior to the\nenforcement of IND AS-115, IND AS-18 dealing with revenue recognition\nalso held

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.

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals on the reasoning that the assessee did not pursue these appeals properly and did not controvert the finding

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.

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals on the reasoning that the assessee did not pursue these appeals properly and did not controvert the finding

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. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

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 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

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

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

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 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

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