M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LIMITED,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’), wherein various additions/disallowances were made. During the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noted that the assessee had claimed interest expenditure on the said loan @ Rs.1,12,80,692/- every year. However, such interest was never paid in any year since such loan

M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LIMIED.,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’), wherein various additions/disallowances were made. During the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noted that the assessee had claimed interest expenditure on the said loan @ Rs.1,12,80,692/- every year. However, such interest was never paid in any year since such loan

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

12 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals, and the same are, hereby, dismissed.” 6.2 The Ld. Sr. DR. placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. 143 taxmann.com 178 and contended that the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section

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

12 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals, and the same are, hereby, dismissed.” 6.2 The Ld. Sr. DR. placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. 143 taxmann.com 178 and contended that the disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section

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

12. Ld. CIT(A) considered all these aspects in detail and reached a conclusion that the learned Assessing Officer did not consider the provisions of section 194C of the Act as they stood prior to 1/6/2015 and applicable for the assessment year 2014-15 and since the assessee satisfied the conditions required, he is not liable for disallowance

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 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

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 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

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

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

ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), NEW DELHI vs. LAXMI ELECTRONICS, , HARIDQAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Laxmi Electronics, F-32, Ward 1(3)(2), New Delhi. Industrial Area, Haridwar. Pan:Aacfl6648R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2017 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Agra (Camp At Dehradun) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In Ground No.1, The Revenue Has Challenged Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,57,71,163/- On Account Of Unconfirmed Purchases.

section 194C of the Act, hence, there was no obligation on the assessee to deduct tax at source, however, it is apparent, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the said submission of the assessee and sustained disallowance of Rs.1,08,000/-. Whereas, he deleted balance amount of Rs.4,12

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

disallowance out of interest made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we hereby affirm the order of CIT(A) and Revenue fails on this aspect. 7. Insofar as the second issue in this appeal is concerned, the same emanates from the action of the AO in scaling down

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 6. We find that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal in A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 5856/DEL/2011, 4279/DEL/2012, 5744/DEL/2012 and 2506/DEL/2013. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under: “27. We have considered the submissions

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

disallowance of interest on such loans. Hence, the earlier assessment years for assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16 cannot be disturbed at all by learned AO while framing the search assessments under section 153A of the Act. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case

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

12: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 12.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying interest under section 234A of the Act whereas the Appellant filed the return of income within the due date applicable to it under the provision of section 139(1) of the Act. Ground No. 13: Erroneous levy

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized documents and there is no need to enhance the income of the assessee. 13. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in making / upholding certain additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized documents and there is no need to enhance the income of the assessee. 13. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in making / upholding certain additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized documents and there is no need to enhance the income of the assessee. 13. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in making / upholding certain additions

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized documents and there is no need to enhance the income of the assessee. 13. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in making / upholding certain additions