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 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

4: Erroneously disregarded the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17 and directions of the Hon'ble DRP for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 4.1 The learned TPO / AO / DRP erred in disregarding the decision of Hon'ble ITAT

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

4. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer (AO) at CPC u/s 143(1)(ii) through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing

ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law by not going through the provisions u/s 10(23)(vi) of the Income Tax Act,1961 while it was main grounds of appeal of the Assessee. Even it its order there is no discussion about exemption under section 10(23)(C)(vi) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

139 of the Act, declaring total income of INR 9,54,06,730/- which includes the additional income of INR 3.89 crores declared on account of difference in closing stock and INR 1.79 crores on account of cash payment u/s 40A(3) of the Act, as admitted during the course of survey conducted u/s 133A