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

disallowance of Rs 20,22,921/- being payment to Global Marine Technologies. 12. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in not allowing the assessee the proper and due credit of TDS. 13. That the explanations, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee have not been considered judiciously and examined and interpreted legally

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (INDIA) LTD., DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

c) of section 42(1) of the Act, if so, to proceed in accordance with the mandate contained in section 42(1) of the Act and, if not, to give an opportunity to the assessee to claim such expenses to be covered by section 44C of the Act. 4.2 The Appellant has relied upon the accounting procedure

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

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

C', and that is also a good ground to dismiss the appeals. 19.Thus, in the conspectus of the facts of the case, and the law applicable to this case, along with the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (supra), we are of Page 12 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA

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

C', and that is also a good ground to dismiss the appeals. 19.Thus, in the conspectus of the facts of the case, and the law applicable to this case, along with the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (supra), we are of Page 12 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA

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

c) shall be valid if it is accompanied by,— (A) an acknowledgement of online payment or bank counter foil or challan for payment of tax where the payment has been made by the assessee; (B) proof of deduction where the tax has been deducted. (9) The statement in Form No. 67 referred to in clause (i) of sub-rule

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

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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)

13,791,059 on account of GST not to be includible in the revenues chargeable to tax under section 44BB of the Act. c) Interest received on income tax refund of INR 476,230 chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate of 40%. 4. The AO completed the assessment on 11/03/2024 under section 143(3) r.w.s144C

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) in 2 consonance with directions of the Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) at Rs. 106,810,379/-. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) wherein the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) to decide afresh after providing assessee an opportunity of being heard

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 80 IA, the same\nis taxed without any real income. Ld. AR thus, requests that deduction\nu/s 80IA of the Act on these items of income deserves to be allowed.\n11. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of\nthe lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned\norder wherein items on which

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

section 54F(1) are satisfied in the present case and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,90,86,224/- 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that following properties inherited by the appellant are not a "residential house as they are commercial properties

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

c) "The person claiming an exemption of any property of his from the scope of his assets must satisfy the conditions of the exemption", (d) "The determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

C. N. PRASAD, J. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II [hereinafter 1 I.T.A. No. 803/Del/2012 referred to CIT (Appeals)] Dehradun, dated 1.12.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on facts and circumstances

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

c) C68F9 to the assessee. All the transactions done by the assessee during the such d) period are delivery based, hence loss of Rs. 41,04,315 should be allowed to the assessee 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