INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

10,250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made

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

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. THDC INDIA LIMITED, TEHRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10,000/- surcharge leviable on outstanding debtors as on 31.03.2017 3. Disallowance of provision of gratuity u/s 7,38,312/- 40A(7) of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded partly. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the income by Rs.56,06,82,000/- on account of leviable

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. 10,29,202/-, the same is erroneous and arbitrary. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case

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. 10,29,202/-, the same is erroneous and arbitrary. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10. In law and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not passing an order considering the grounds appealed against by the Assessee after admitting an appeal filed u/s 246A by the Assessee. 11. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271G

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

4. Since the grounds are common in both the appeals they are being adjudicated together. 5. Ground No. 1 Reassessment u/s 148 –not pressed 6. Ground No. 2 to 7-Transfer Pricing issue: Intra group services: 7. During year, the intra-group services received by the assessee from the Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.229,61,81,619/- on account

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

4. Since the grounds are common in both the appeals they are being adjudicated together. 5. Ground No. 1 Reassessment u/s 148 –not pressed 6. Ground No. 2 to 7-Transfer Pricing issue: Intra group services: 7. During year, the intra-group services received by the assessee from the Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.229,61,81,619/- on account

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

4. The case file reveals that on earlier occasion, the matter was listed for hearing, but, none appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice. On the date of hearing also none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed on behalf of assessee. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte

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

ii) of sub-rule (8) shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income.' 4. The Assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia

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

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with

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

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with

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

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)

disallowing Rs 2,41,874, as the amount had not been received as Salary in advance, but was a lumpsum settlement for the future service, under a Voluntary Separation Scheme, to relieve all the permanent employees of the Company,( severing the employer employee relationship) approved by the Govt, of India 2.2 The Scheme was not voluntary, since there was included

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

4. Disallowance of loss on sale of vehicle 2,47,054/- 4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the relief of Rs.12,03,82,566/- out of total addition/disallowance of Rs.14,83,09,615/- made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the book results cannot

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

4. Disallowance of loss on sale of vehicle 2,47,054/- 4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the relief of Rs.12,03,82,566/- out of total addition/disallowance of Rs.14,83,09,615/- made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the book results cannot