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

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

22,613/- was disallowed. Accordingly, income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 38,67,996/- against the returned income as per the revised return of income at Rs. 37,17,350/-. The Ld.CIT(A) by considering the relevant provision u/s 10(1) & 10(10C) of the Act, found that claim made by the assessee is genuine and based

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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

disallowing inventory written off of Rs.6,54,60,721 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventory written off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account which has been audited by an independent auditor. Ground

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

disallowing inventory written off of Rs.6,54,60,721 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventory written off was debited to the Profit and Loss Account which has been audited by an independent auditor. Ground

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication of additional ground for claim of income tax depreciation

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

22,13,440/-. Thereafter, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 39,70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal

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

22,13,440/-. Thereafter, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 39,70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal

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

22,13,440/-. Thereafter, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 39,70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal

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

22,13,440/-. Thereafter, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 39,70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal

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

22,13,440/-. Thereafter, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 39,70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal

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

22,13,440/-. Thereafter, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 39,70,440/- after making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 17,57,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 7098 & 7099/De/2017 ITA Nos. 7095 & 7097/Del/2017 Manav Johar & Ors vs. DCIT 2.1 In appeal

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

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 of Guidance Note on Tax Audit under section 44AB of the Act issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India wherein it has been mentioned that view taken by tax auditor is not binding on the appellant . The relevant paragraph has been reproduced as under: It will be appreciated that even Guidance Note on Tax Audit recognizes that

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

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 the economic

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions