ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10 years. The Sr. DR has not brought anything on the record to demonstrate that either the nature of the said loan has been changed by the lender; UP Government or the appellant assessee is not required to show the same as liability. Here, we not find any material on the record which supports the AO’s stand particularly when

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific Pte. Limited (“BGAP”) 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing interest of Rs.2

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific Pte. Limited (“BGAP”) 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing interest of Rs.2

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10) is decided in favour of the assessees and the orders of the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) on this issue is upheld on the ground that the returns filed under section 153A are returns filed under section 139(1).” 14. On perusal of provisions of section 153A of the Act, we find that there is no statutory time limit

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

20,075/- of the Development Charges in the AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Besides, the above, the AO, in the AY 2018-19, also made the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, it appealed before

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

20,075/- of the Development Charges in the AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Besides, the above, the AO, in the AY 2018-19, also made the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, it appealed before

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance made is beyond the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as a result of search on the assessee, no incriminating material has been detected as a result of such search and, therefore, addition made is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance made is beyond the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as a result of search on the assessee, no incriminating material has been detected as a result of such search and, therefore, addition made is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance made is beyond the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as a result of search on the assessee, no incriminating material has been detected as a result of such search and, therefore, addition made is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance made is beyond the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as a result of search on the assessee, no incriminating material has been detected as a result of such search and, therefore, addition made is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance made is beyond the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as a result of search on the assessee, no incriminating material has been detected as a result of such search and, therefore, addition made is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

section 153A of the Act and, therefore, the disallowance made is beyond the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as a result of search on the assessee, no incriminating material has been detected as a result of such search and, therefore, addition made is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 10: Disallowance of depreciation 10.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.2,14,46,607 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 10.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that this

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

10. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 5,41,080/- being payment to NOV Brandt Oilfield. 11. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 20,22,921/- being payment to Global Marine Technologies. 12. That

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

20% and assessee herein. The nature of services rendered under this Petrogas contract has already been detailed herein (supra). From the same it is evident that the services provided by the assessee are in connection with prospecting/ extraction/ production of mineral oil and hence, its activities would be squarely covered within the ambit of provision of section 44BB

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

10. Ground No.7 is regarding disallowance of branch office expenditure and ground No. 8 is regarding disallowance of expenditure incurred due to non-producing of production sharing contracts. 12 11. We have heard ld. Sr. Counsel as well as ld. DR and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below on this issue as well as the decision of this

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

20,777/- under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act. With respect to non-genuine sundry creditors, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.11,54,74,533/- by assigning the reason that the AO has not specified the section under which the non-genuine sundry creditors were taxed particularly when the AO has not doubted purchases

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

20,777/- under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act. With respect to non-genuine sundry creditors, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.11,54,74,533/- by assigning the reason that the AO has not specified the section under which the non-genuine sundry creditors were taxed particularly when the AO has not doubted purchases