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

capital gain of Rs 12,61,857/-, which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee also furnished the ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the books of M/s Sushil Financial Services P Ltd, Mumbai for trading of shares and commodities, which was accepted by the ld. AO. 4. Further as per Form

SHRI VARDHAN GHILDIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vardhan Ghildiyal Vs. Ito, Ca Mayank Kumar Aggarwal Ward 1(2) (5) 286A 1St Floor, Garhi Cantt. Dehradun Dakra Road, Dehradun- 248001 Pan – (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain for equity shares. Apart from that Ld. AO noticed that during demonetization period a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was deposited in specified bank notes in account no. 3018008800012252 held with the Punjab National Bank. 3. The assessee explained that this amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was withdrawn from same loan account on 23.09.2016. However

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

48,92,040/-. As against the assessment order, the assessee has instituted an appeal before the CIT(A) on 16/01/2019. As per Section 249 (2) of the Act, the appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT (A). The assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 352 days. The assessee has claimed

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

48,92,040/-. As against the assessment order, the assessee has instituted an appeal before the CIT(A) on 16/01/2019. As per Section 249 (2) of the Act, the appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT (A). The assessee has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 352 days. The assessee has claimed

MEENAKSHI KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing] [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Meenakshi Kumar, Vs Pr.Cit, C/O-Matta Garg & Co., Dehradun. 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Pan-Agipk3345G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri N.S.Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr. Cit-1, Dehradun Dated 09.03.2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

48,15,000/-. He noticed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act at INR 52,05,000/- and declared Long Term Capital Gain at NIL. Ld. Pr. CIT proceeded to set aside the assessment and directed the AO to re-examine the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act on the ground that the deduction

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 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

48,22,523 in total towards international transactions pertaining to payment of management service and unit charges, IM charges and payroll expenses to its AE. Ground No. 2: Erroneous rejection of Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM”) and selection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP”) Method 2.1. The learned TPO / AO / DRP / have erred in law and on facts by disregarding

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

gains of business or profession",— xxxxxx (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 : xxxxxx Provided further that

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

gains of business or profession",— xxxxxx (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 : xxxxxx Provided further that

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

gains of business or profession",— xxxxxx (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 : xxxxxx Provided further that

HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

48 & 98/CIT(A)-2/2016-17, dated 17.07.2017 and 30.08.2017, ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 2 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. in proceedings u/s 143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

48 & 98/CIT(A)-2/2016-17, dated 17.07.2017 and 30.08.2017, ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 2 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. in proceedings u/s 143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

48 & 98/CIT(A)-2/2016-17, dated 17.07.2017 and 30.08.2017, ITA Nos. 6026, 6171 & 6714/Del./2017 2 Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. in proceedings u/s 143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake