CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (AI, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CIT(A), DEHRADUN vs. CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS

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

section 10(26BBB) and claimed by the assessee in its return of income. Thirdly, the issue involved in the present case is whether the assessee corporation was "established by a Central, State of Provincial Act' and is eligible u/s 10(26BBB) ? which was not the subject matter of the case relied upon by the assessee. Therefore, the above cited case

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS 2015-16\n5000000.00\n(AS PER ANNEXURE C)\nADVANCE SHOPS UNITS\n12961.00\n(AS PER ANNEXURE D)\nADVANCE TAX\n50000.00\nMUKTA ARTS\n400000.00\nSECURITY DEPOSITS\n5756742.00 SERVICE TAX RECEIVABLE (13-14)\n66595.00\n\nADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS\n3015877.15\nPROVISIONS\nTDS PAYABLE\n120943.00 (AS PER ANNEXURE 'F')-\nSERVICE TAX PAYABLE\n371622.00-\nAUDIT FEES PAYABLE\n34500.00\nVAT PAYABLE\n111000.00\n120379378.15\n120379378.15\nDuring

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

section 2 of the Income-tax Act. 13.3 Applicability: These amendments takes effect from 1st April, 2019 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent assessment years. 5. Your Honour, the compensation received as ONE TIME SETTLEMENT was taxed in the AY 2016.17.Reading the above explanation to the amendment, the lump sum compensation would

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

TDS thereupon to the tune of Rs.12,10,250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

10% on gross receipts actually, then still its income would be determined only in terms of section 44BB(1) of the Act. There is absolutely no scope for determining income of the assessee under normal provisions of the Act. This is so because of non obstante clause provided u/s 44BB of the Act which reads as under:- “Special provision

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted”. (Disallowance of Rs. 10,78,358/-) 5 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 (iii) The assessee's written submission vide their reply dated 16.11.2015, with regard to disallowance made as per para 5.1 of the draft assessment order regarding "Depreciation and Amortization expenses" of Rs.49,86,844/-, has been perused and found not acceptable. The assessee could not prove

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFF SHORE SERVICES INC , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, ground no.3 is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.241/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc.,Unit No.603, 6Th Floor, Tax, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Satellite Gazebo, East Wing,Guru Road, Hargovindji Marg,Andheri Mumbai, Navi Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Mumbai,Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaach5154M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made applicable to short deduction of tax at source and the disallowance made was directed to be deleted. 5.1.4 I have carefully considered the facts and judicial precedents. It is to note that vide Finance Act 2020, the rate at which TDS is to be made w.r.t payments on account

SAEXPLORATION INC INDIA PROJECTS OFFICE,DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

10 Saexploration INC a benefit on profits accruing with reference to export turnover. Therefore, "turnover" was the requirement. “Commission, rent, interest etc. did not involve any turnover.” It was concluded that ‘sales tax and excise duty’ like the aforementioned tools like interest, rent etc. ‘also do not have any element of ‘turn over’’. 15. In CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works

SHERWATER GEOSERVICES LTD. INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,DEHRADUN vs. AICT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

10 Shearwater Geoservices Ltd. a benefit on profits accruing with reference to export turnover. Therefore, "turnover" was the requirement. “Commission, rent, interest etc. did not involve any turnover.” It was concluded that ‘sales tax and excise duty’ like the aforementioned tools like interest, rent etc. ‘also do not have any element of ‘turn over’’. 15. In CIT v. Lakshmi Machine

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

10% on royalty and FTS is not permissible as per the treaty provisions. While coming to sue conclusion, we are well supported by the following decisions…………………” 3.1 Regarding the grounds 2 & 3 pertaining to the issue of license to use proprietary software, we support the funding of Ld. CIT(A) (supra), especially also following the judgment rendered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. HOTEL SURBHI PALACE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 21/04/2021 by assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 11,17,16,165/- by disallowing a sum of Rs. 41,77,095/- u/s 35D of the Act, Rs. 34,070/- on account of interest on delayed payment of service tax and TDS and Rs. 10