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

disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,23,992/- and for which the appeal was file and the CIT(A) has not entertained the same as the appeal was filed late, the same is arbitrary and unjustified. Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. DY. CIT 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has not appreciated

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

disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,23,992/- and for which the appeal was file and the CIT(A) has not entertained the same as the appeal was filed late, the same is arbitrary and unjustified. Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. DY. CIT 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has not appreciated

AJAY THAKUR ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1)1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

6. We are of the considered view that once the legislature has already made it clear that such a property has to be a capital asset, stricter interpretation only would be applicable herein as per Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) which was never considered in the tribunal’s earlier

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. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 5,41,080/- being payment to NOV Brandt Oilfield. 11. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 20,22,921/- being payment to Global Marine Technologies. 12. That

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

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

6. In the context of the above submissions of the appellant needs to be evaluated in the context of findings given by the AO. The deductibility of TDS will depend on the provisions of DTAA and other relevant factors. 7. Analysis of payment made to Dubai Leading Technologies (UAE):- The nature of transaction is with respect to payment made towards

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

6. In the context of the above submissions of the appellant needs to be evaluated in the context of findings given by the AO. The deductibility of TDS will depend on the provisions of DTAA and other relevant factors. 7. Analysis of payment made to Dubai Leading Technologies (UAE):- The nature of transaction is with respect to payment made towards

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

6. In the context of the above submissions of the appellant needs to be evaluated in the context of findings given by the AO. The deductibility of TDS will depend on the provisions of DTAA and other relevant factors. 7. Analysis of payment made to Dubai Leading Technologies (UAE):- The nature of transaction is with respect to payment made towards

PSB PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,U.S. NAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

6. At the outset, we find that the learned AR has drawn our attention to page no. 27 of the paper-book, containing the screenshot available in Income Tax Department portal qua the assessee. On perusal of the said screenshot, the reply stated to have been filed by the assessee before the learned PCIT is not discernible thereon. With regard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WESTERN GECO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, HARYANA

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

10, DLF Cyber City, Uttarakhand Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: AAACW4324J Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Ms.Ananya Kapoor, Advs and Sh. ShivamYadav, Adv Revenue by Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

vii) Confirmation from Trust/ Gaushala to whom agricultural produce (grass, bajra) etc was provided by assessee (kindly see page 238 of PB). viii) Since the produce from land was used for self- consumption, as such, there was no occasion to have reported the said fact to Land/ Revenue Authorities. ix) Request made by assessee to AO for field visit

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

VII of the Finance Act, hence commodity transaction loss should be treated as normal business loss. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at or before the hearing of appeal.” Page 2 of 16 ITA No.4258 & 4259/Del/2018 Late Sh. Chandra prakash Chaudhary The Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

VII of the Finance Act, hence commodity transaction loss should be treated as normal business loss. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at or before the hearing of appeal.” Page 2 of 16 ITA No.4258 & 4259/Del/2018 Late Sh. Chandra prakash Chaudhary The Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

disallowance of INR 2,11,15,54,378/- out of total deduction claimed u/s 80-IA on other income declared which include late payment surcharge. Further, the AO in his wisdom has made addition of INR 245,79,21,900/- towards late payment surcharge holding the same as taxable on accrual basis for a period of 10 months. This clearly

M/S. UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Ujvn Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner C/O. Mn/S. Rra Taxindia, Of Income, D-28, South Extension, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A, Part-I, Subhash Road, Dehradun New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacu6672R Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

disallowance u/s 801A of the extra amount charged on sale of electricity (other than shortfall) is not relevant. Further we would also like to state that the shortfall charges earned by your assessee are in relation to the business of your assessee eligible for deduction u/s 801A of the Income Tax Act i.e generation of power." 5. It was specifically

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6. The AO had rejected the books of account and determined the income at 25% of gross revenue from inside India operations as the income attributable to the PE of the assessee in India. The AO in the draft assessment order has observed that assessee submitted that it was following percentage completion method and, therefore, revenue as per invoice

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6. The AO had rejected the books of account and determined the income at 25% of gross revenue from inside India operations as the income attributable to the PE of the assessee in India. The AO in the draft assessment order has observed that assessee submitted that it was following percentage completion method and, therefore, revenue as per invoice