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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have gone through the reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect. We have also noticed the amendment made to section 194C (6) vis-à-vis the pre-amended provision. Insofar as the provision applies to the assessment year 2014-15, it requires the contractor to obtain

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

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 of (-) Rs.96,68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue

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

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 of (-) Rs.96,68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue

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

11: Disallowance of depreciation 11.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.3,19,15,609 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 11.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that this difference is on account of depreciation claimed on Global IT & T expenditure

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

11: Disallowance of depreciation 11.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.3,19,15,609 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 11.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that this difference is on account of depreciation claimed on Global IT & T expenditure

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

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

6. Mr. Vinay Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, in particular Section 17, is distinct from the provisions of Section 58 of the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. It is also argued that the amount received

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

6. Mr. Vinay Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974, in particular Section 17, is distinct from the provisions of Section 58 of the U.P. Urban, Planning & Development Act, 1973, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. It is also argued that the amount received

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

section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other grounds. Ground No, 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra- group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 1.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing adjustment

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act without appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is yet to be decided by the competent authority. 6

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

11 Devendra Dutt Pant excessive weight to considerations which had a bearing only on potentialities of the land for use for agricultural purposes. For the reasons already given, we do not think that the term "agricultural land" had such a wide scope as the Full Bench appears to have given it for the purposes of the Act we have before

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

6,37,080 2014-15 27,95,725 2015-16 7,96,806 2016-17 12,16,310 2017-18 9,97,365 7. The assessee in the revised return filed on 13.12.2018 submitted that the taxes and interest payable on the additional income so offered for the AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 had to be appropriated from

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

6. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that the impugned dispute with regard to the disallowance of interest under Section 14A of the Act is no longer res-integra and has already been decided in the earlier years in the assessee’s own case by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand

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

11: Disallowance of inventory written off 11.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing inventory written off of Rs. 15,71,20,459 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 11.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventory written

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

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

6. That the AO has grossly erred in making disallowance of Rs 9,41,400/- on account of purchase of chemicals. 7. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 39,86,242/- on account of disallowance of salary of Kameshwar Shukla. 8. That the AO and DRP have grossly

GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both

Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 called for the account of the assessee from Oriental bank of Commerce, Doiwala, Dehradun and obtained the copy of statement of above account. 6. The AO made addition of Rs.8,74,000/- on the grounds that the account has been opened on 24.06.2011 and amount of Rs.6,00,000/- has been

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 2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it was seen that the assessee had failed to comply with the terms, as the order of the Govt, of India, Ministry of Power dated 05.11.2001 was not a Gazette Notification, but was only a provisional order. Hence, the assessee company had failed to fulfill this final condition as well. In view