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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

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

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

11. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and while reading Section 234E of the Act, it appears that the Department/respondents can impose the late fee for the circumstances mentioned under Section 234E of the Act with effect from 01.07.2012, but not when they process the TDS under Section 200A of the Act. In the Finance Bill

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

5) As explained above, UEPPCB is a corporation established by a Central Act (i.e. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, etc.) and hence should be covered within the aforesaid notification read with provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of .-the Act. This fact is evident from the information available on the website of UEPPCB (http://UEPPCBb,uk.gov.in

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

5) As explained above, UEPPCB is a corporation established by a Central Act (i.e. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, etc.) and hence should be covered within the aforesaid notification read with provisions of section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of .-the Act. This fact is evident from the information available on the website of UEPPCB (http://UEPPCBb,uk.gov.in

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

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that although there is double tax avoidance between India and UAE “DTAA”, but, at the same time, it does not cover such fees for technical services assessment there under. It’s case accordingly is that the learned lower authorities have rightly assessed the assessee

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

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that although there is double tax avoidance between India and UAE “DTAA”, but, at the same time, it does not cover such fees for technical services assessment there under. It’s case accordingly is that the learned lower authorities have rightly assessed the assessee

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

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that although there is double tax avoidance between India and UAE “DTAA”, but, at the same time, it does not cover such fees for technical services assessment there under. It’s case accordingly is that the learned lower authorities have rightly assessed the assessee

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

11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee does not fulfill the requirement of section 10(26BBB) in any manner. It is settled law that exemption from taxation is an exception to the general rule of taxation and a person claiming the same has to show that he satisfies all the conditions that are attached

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

TDS return filed by you, for the year under consideration.” 6. Further yet another show cause notice was issued by the ld. AO as to why the assessment should not be completed u/s 144 of the Act vide notice dated 16.12.2018. In the said notice, the ld. AO had proposed to make disallowance of Rs 73,45,040/- alone towards