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

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That in facts and circumstances of the ease, the AO has disallowed to give the credit of brought forward Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,29

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That in facts and circumstances of the ease, the AO has disallowed to give the credit of brought forward Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,29

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

disallowance of any/few specific claim(s) of expenditure, would mandatorily lead to invocation of 145(3) of the Act, then these sections would be rendered otiose because, then by estimation of income under best judgment after rejection of accounts being mandatory would not entail specific disallowance/addition for violations of any of sections from 28 to 44DB

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

disallowance of any/few specific claim(s) of expenditure, would mandatorily lead to invocation of 145(3) of the Act, then these sections would be rendered otiose because, then by estimation of income under best judgment after rejection of accounts being mandatory would not entail specific disallowance/addition for violations of any of sections from 28 to 44DB

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

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 in disallowing

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

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 in disallowing

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

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 in disallowing

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)

29,80,127/- by making various additions/ disallowance. Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dt. 29.12.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus the assessee is before the Tribunal in the present appeal on the additions / disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee has taken following grounds

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

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.”

section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition of Rs.4

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 per cent of the cost. In the absence of any basis for valuing the obsolete items at 50 per cent of the cost, the Tribunal could not have upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer .” 40 . Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. – 240 ITR 256 (De l.) held 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

10 per cent. of the cost. In the absence of any basis for valuing the obsolete items at 50 per cent. of the cost, the Tribunal could not have upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer.” 40. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. – 240 ITR 256 (Del.) held that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 80IC of the Act on the ground that the Assessee failed to substantiate that the manufacturing was actually being done at Haridwar unit of the Assessee. 3. It is pertinent to note that, the Assessee approached Hon'ble High Court on the issue of disallowance made on the Duty Draw Back and during the pendency of the proceedings before

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTRANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with