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 :

section 148 of the Act were invoked on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and no independent verification of fact was made. It is observed that AO has based his satisfaction on the entries found noted in loose papers No. LP 184 & 186 however, in the report filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, the ld. PCOT stated that the entries

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 :

section 148 of the Act were invoked on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and no independent verification of fact was made. It is observed that AO has based his satisfaction on the entries found noted in loose papers No. LP 184 & 186 however, in the report filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, the ld. PCOT stated that the entries

BEER SINGH BISHT,PAURI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4)(3), KOTHDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. AY: 2014-15 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a retired teacher from Education Department of Uttarakhand. Based on the AIR information

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied minimum @100% tax thereon. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CIT(A). Aggrieved the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Admittedly, survey operation was carried out u/s 133A

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. UTTRAKHAND POORV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

148 of the Act was initiated and thereafter assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2015 determining the total income at Rs.6,84,52,829/- inter alia by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act. On such denial of claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. UTTRAKHAND POORV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

148 of the Act was initiated and thereafter assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2015 determining the total income at Rs.6,84,52,829/- inter alia by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act. On such denial of claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB

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.

148 of the Act, the assessee filed her ITRs declaring the incomes what were declared in the original ITRs. ITA No. 115/DDN/2024; AY 2013-14 4.1 The deposits in both bank accounts exceed the income disclosed in the ITR by Rs.5,63,200/-. Therefore, the AO show-caused the assessee to Rs.5,63,200/- in bank accounts; however, the assessee

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.

148 of the Act, the assessee filed her ITRs declaring the incomes what were declared in the original ITRs. ITA No. 115/DDN/2024; AY 2013-14 4.1 The deposits in both bank accounts exceed the income disclosed in the ITR by Rs.5,63,200/-. Therefore, the AO show-caused the assessee to Rs.5,63,200/- in bank accounts; however, 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

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 u/s 271

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

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

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 u/s 271

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

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

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

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

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised

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

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised