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

section 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 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

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

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

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

25-10-2011 has held that the return of income filed under section 153A was to be deemed to be a return filed under section 139 and therefore all other provisions of the Act would apply in view of the provisions of law stated in section 153A(1)(a). The Tribunal, therefore, held that even if a return of income

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR vs. NAINI TISSUES LTD, U S NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

25% or 30% of the profits as the case may be. In the case of the assessee, the A.O. noted that it was a new unit which was established during the period 07.01.2003 to 31.03.2012, assessee had commenced commercial production from 16.05.2005 and had claimed A.Y. 2006-07 as the initial assessment year for claim of deduction under section 80IC

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

25. In view of the aforesaid detailed observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that income of the assessee should be determined on presumptive basis as per section 44BB(1) of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the various disallowances made by the ld AO in the assessment would

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

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% on gross receipts actually, then still its income would be determined only in terms of section 44BB(1) of the Act. There is absolutely no scope for determining income of the assessee under normal provisions of the Act. This is so because of non obstante clause provided u/s 44BB of the Act which reads as under:- “Special provision

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

25. However, with regard to the addition made of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of NEFTs sent to Vimal Rani and sought to be disguised as cash withdrawals, it appears that the addition has been rightly made. It has been submitted that Shri Madan Lal gave Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to the partners and asked that the money

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

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

section 54B deduction claim to uphold the learned lower authorities’ respective findings in very terms. 10. Next comes the assessee’s second substantive issue of the cost of improvement claimed to the tune of Rs.31,26,815/- which stands accepted to the extent of Rs.9,94,563/- in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer thereafter disallowed 25

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

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 difference is on account ofdepreciation claimed on Global IT & T expenditure and that

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the depreciation of fixed assets transferred from UPJVNL for AY 2012-13, works out to Rs.4,13,68,564/- and these were transferred after the bifurcation from UPJVNL to UJVNL. It was submitted that the Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (UJVNL) was incorporated

BHUPENDRA BORA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification application before the AO on 15-6-2020 & 25-2-2021 and submitted that credit for FTC as claimed in the return should be given. In the rectification order dated 10-3-2021, the AO upheld the action on the ground that the Assessee has failed to furnish Form

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

disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer at Rs.7,41,87,950.00 as against declaring Income at Rs.28,25,510.00. The CIT (A) has erred

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

disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer at Rs.7,41,87,950.00 as against declaring Income at Rs.28,25,510.00. The CIT (A) has erred