M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

section 10(26BBB) and claimed by the assessee in its return of income. Thirdly, the issue involved in the present case is whether the assessee corporation was "established by a Central, State of Provincial Act' and is eligible u/s 10(26BBB) ? which was not the subject matter of the case relied upon by the assessee. Therefore, the above cited case

U C JAIN & SONS,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 3, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2012-13 Uc Jain & Sons, Vs Ito, Ward-3, C/O M/S. Rishabh Velveleen Ltd., Haridwar. 9Th Km. Haridwar Delhi Road, Jwalapur, Haridwar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaahu1616A

5. None appeared for the Assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 6. The Assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, but not produced any documents to show that the Assessee has completed the project and delay in obtaining the completion certificate was only

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

5. Aggrieved by such additions made by the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and argued his case on two counts. Firstly, that the learned Assessing Officer wrongly applied the law in force subsequent to 1/6/2015, whereas the case relates to the assessment earlier thereto, in which year there was no requirement on the part

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

5. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on records. ITA No. 908/Del/2017, AY 2012-13 6. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the case of AY 2012-13 is that whether the loss declared in the ITR at (-) Rs.76,05,926/- should be taken as a base for computing income or the loss

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

5. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on records. ITA No. 908/Del/2017, AY 2012-13 6. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the case of AY 2012-13 is that whether the loss declared in the ITR at (-) Rs.76,05,926/- should be taken as a base for computing income or the loss

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing standby I.T.A.No.6114/Del/2017 & CO No. 13/Del/2018 charges totaling to Rs.54,600,000/- on the ground of business exigency and business prudence not proved by the appellant.” 2. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the assessee challenged the validity of the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/144C r.w.s. 254 of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10(26BBB) of the Act. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act on 30.03.2017, wherein the claimed exemption of Rs. 5,82,53,120/- by the appellant was disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 44DA of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the cost of materials of Rs. 493,200/- on the ground that the expense could not be verified. 6. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred

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

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)

section 269SS of the Act which prohibits any deposit or loan in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- from any person. Further except making claim that the amounts were received in cash, no evidence in the shape of confirmation etc. of Shri Madan Lal or Smt. Vimla Devi were produced before the lower authorities nor before us, to support the contention

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. THE NAINITAL BANK LTD., UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Bleassessment Year : 2013-14

10 of the Act. The AO, however, disagreed with the submission of the assessee and noted that since the assessee was having a common pool of funds and a major part included interest bearing deposits, therefore, the formula prescribed in Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules requires to be applied in order to make a partial disallowance

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

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)

10)C, applies to a scheme of voluntary separation. The ONE TIME SETTLEMENT was not voluntary. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO has erred in not allowing the total deduction of Rs 9,65,429/ allows by the Ld CIT(A) and restricting the relief to Rs 5,00,000. The CIT(A) has accepted the claim

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

10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section