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

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

26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized to collect and retain fee & charges for fulfilling its object. The development charges included in fee & charges collected by the assessee had been kept in a separate account; namely, Infrastructure

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

26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized to collect and retain fee & charges for fulfilling its object. The development charges included in fee & charges collected by the assessee had been kept in a separate account; namely, Infrastructure

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

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

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

NORMAN GORGE WILSON,NOIDA vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),WARD-1, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5667/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Norman George Wilson, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abopw3343B Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

26, 2014, December 29, 2015 and July 14, 2016. 2 Norman George Wilson Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred

JERRY KEMP KARTAR,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5668/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jerry Kemp Kartar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajzpc0774D Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

26, 2014, December 29, 2015 and July 14, 2016. 2 Jerry Kemp Karter Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred

PAUL GERARD JENNER,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEEHRTADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5669/Ddn/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Paul Gerard Jenner, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anwpj5878L Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

26, 2014, December 29, 2015 and July 14, 2016. 2 Paul Gerard Jenner Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred

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

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

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. 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. 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 Tribunal

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.”

26,96,37,032/- which was stated to be the equal to the difference of assets liabilities including capital reserves. On being asked about the same and after discussion with the A.R. for the assessee, it was found that the 2 liability side of the Balance Sheet of the assessee was still not settled, i.e. the loan amount transferred

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

10. It was further submitted that rule 128(9) provides that Form 67 should be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, the rule nowhere provides that if the said Form 67 is not filed within the above stated time frame, the relief as sought

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

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account of bogus

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

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account of bogus

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

26,996/- by making additions/disallowances of Rs.77,91,617/- on two grounds: Rs, 60,39,706/- u/s. 40(a)(i) on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B and Rs. 17,51,912/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B. 3.1. Aggrieved with the order