PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Ward 1(4) (1), Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, 249201, Uttarakhand Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Pan: Aldpd9616P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 Order

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 36,05,530/- on account of suppression of sale receipts u/s 28 of the Act and also made addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s 68

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

13,68,568/- on the assets acquired by the UJVNL and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings asked the assessee to explain why capacity charges, deemed generation charges and capacity index incentive amounting to Rs.45,31,58,363/- should not be added to the total income

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13 of DRP rules 2009 dated 23 January 2012 for AY 2008-09. Addition qua services in connection with exploration/prospecting /extraction of mineral oil to non-PSC partners 1. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in assessing receipts of Rs. 174,219,718/- from non-PSC partners on account of provision of mud- engineering services

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

13. The issue of maximum time limit granted by learned AO in the notices issued under section 153A of the Act to file the return is to be construed as due date under section 139(1) of the Act, has been duly addressed by the Coordinate Bench decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of ACIT

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KAMAL JEWELLERS, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

13. The sale of jewellery was also verified by the Department of Central Excise. 14. That the AO has made the addition only on the basis of comparison of the sale pattern of previous year which is basically a suspicion and no addition can be made merely on the basis of suspicion. 15. The appellant has distinguished the decision

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,600/- paid to the State Excise department as unexplained. The AO also noticed that the assessee, licensee of country liquor appointed by the 4 Reena Verma State Govt., had picked up her allotted quota of liquor from India Glycols Ltd. by making cash payment of Rs.40,09,123/- in contravention to section

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(14). Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete\nthe addition of Rs.2,13,16,178 made Page 48 of 50 AAВСТ7938C-\nTRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-\n26/1079069899(1) on account of sale of agricultural land under the\nhead Long Term Capital gain. Hence this ground of appeal is allowed.\"\n\n7. With regard

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that Ground No. 1 relating to invocation of provisions of section 13

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that Ground No. 1 relating to invocation of provisions of section 13

SUNIL SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him From Time To Time

section 68 of the Act itself would not come into operation. On this limited count itself, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. Sunil Srivastava vs. ITO 9. On the contrary, the assessee tried to furnish the evidences that were available with him to prove that he had procured a contract to supply

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 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

13: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 13.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying consequential interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground No. 14: Violation of principles of natural justice 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC- HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

68 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\nITA No.210, 62, 63, 74 to76 /DDN/2024\nSurender Kumar Chawla\n9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making\nand confirming addition of Rs35,00,000/- allegedly as unexplained\ninvestment u/s 69 on account of alleged payments made to Randhir Singh,\nRamveer Singh and Ganesh Singh

AMRIT VARSHA UDYOG LTD,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

13,825/- from M/s Shri) Ganpati Enterprises, Rs. Rs.15,10,506/- from M/s Delhi Steel Trading Co. and Rs.53,00,074/- from M/s New India Traders. During the course of the 2nd reassessment proceeding, the assessee provided bills for goods purchased, transport waybills and bank statements highlighting payments made. However the AO didn’t accept the assessee’s contention