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

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

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

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

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

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 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made

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

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

SERCEL SA ,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS was deducted by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGS) u/s 195 of the Act, in it’s ITR. The assessee has reported an amount of Rs. 108,27,23,947/- as exempt in the Schedule EI: Exempt Income. In order to examine the veracity of the assessee’s claims, notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaires were issued

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

5 Saexploration INC (CAL) of rent UP Hotels [2013] 35 taxmann.com 565 Luxury Tax (Allahabad) Kunjpura Kiln [1982] 9 Taxman 173 (P&H) Royalty (payable to government) Rampur Distillery [2006] 154 Taxman 274 Export Duty (Allahabad) Ovira Logistics [2015] 58 taxmann.com 206 Service Tax (Bombay) 8. The ld. DR submitted that in view of the above mentioned case laws

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

5 Shearwater Geoservices Ltd. (CAL) of rent UP Hotels [2013] 35 taxmann.com 565 Luxury Tax (Allahabad) Kunjpura Kiln [1982] 9 Taxman 173 (P&H) Royalty (payable to government) Rampur Distillery [2006] 154 Taxman 274 Export Duty (Allahabad) Ovira Logistics [2015] 58 taxmann.com 206 Service Tax (Bombay) 8. The ld. DR submitted that in view of the above mentioned case laws

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion hereinabove, it is concluded that the payment cannot be brought within the ambit of FTS, in the absence of an enabling Article

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion hereinabove, it is concluded that the payment cannot be brought within the ambit of FTS, in the absence of an enabling Article

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion hereinabove, it is concluded that the payment cannot be brought within the ambit of FTS, in the absence of an enabling Article