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

TDS should be deducted on the interest payment made to UEPPCB. b) Copy of a letter dated 21 September 2012 (copy enclosed at pages 34 to 35 of the paper book) received from UEPPCB informing the Bank to issue the Fixed Deposit to UEPPCB and reiterating that as UEPPCB is a Government entity, no IDS should be deducted

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

34,733/- made by the AO is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised are allowed in favor of the appellant.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the GIT (A) has erred in law by not considering

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 43CA of the Act and further deletion of addition of INR\n2,24,34,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act\ntowards cash deposits during demonetization.\n\n6. Regarding Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 taken against the\ndeletion of additions of cash deposit during the demonetization\nperiod in Specified bank notes

CLASSIC MOTELS,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

34,400/- and interest thereon of Rs.71,550/-was automatically charged u/s 234E while passing the order u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The order passed u/s 201(1A) electronically was never served upon the assessee. The assessee, on receipt of notice of demand, came to know about the order passed, immediately filed appeal

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

34,773/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 was charged u/s 234E while passing the order u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s 201(1A) electronically was never served upon the assessee. The CIT(A) has suo motu rejected the appeals on sole ground of late filing of appeal

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

34,773/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 was charged u/s 234E while passing the order u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s 201(1A) electronically was never served upon the assessee. The CIT(A) has suo motu rejected the appeals on sole ground of late filing of appeal

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

34,954/-. If the presumptive income @10% is applied as per section 44BB(1) of the MB Petroleum Services LLC Act, then the income of the assessee would be Rs. 76,73,495/- . Whereas, the ld AO in the instant case has determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,72,23,425/- which is more than even

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provisions of section 195 needs to be read with the provisions of sections 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

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

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

TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provisions of section 195 needs to be read with the provisions of sections 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

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

TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provisions of section 195 needs to be read with the provisions of sections 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

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