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

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

9. The next issue is in respect of shrinkage/shortage of Rs. 8,88,523/- disallowed by the AO in respect of Petrochemical Division of the assessee. The AO has disallowed the claim of Rs. 8,88,523/- only on the reasoning that the same is more than the permitted limit by the Indian Country Corporation. No other reasoning was mentioned

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

9. The next issue is in respect of shrinkage/shortage of Rs. 8,88,523/- disallowed by the AO in respect of Petrochemical Division of the assessee. The AO has disallowed the claim of Rs. 8,88,523/- only on the reasoning that the same is more than the permitted limit by the Indian Country Corporation. No other reasoning was mentioned

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

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

13. Insofar as the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the AO held that the said payment of reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of fee for technical services. As noted by the Id. CIT (A), there is no FTS clause in the India UAE DTAA regarding fee of technical services and, therefore, there

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

13. Insofar as the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the AO held that the said payment of reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of fee for technical services. As noted by the Id. CIT (A), there is no FTS clause in the India UAE DTAA regarding fee of technical services and, therefore, there

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

13. Insofar as the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the AO held that the said payment of reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of fee for technical services. As noted by the Id. CIT (A), there is no FTS clause in the India UAE DTAA regarding fee of technical services and, therefore, there

ATRI PAPERS, PRIVATE LIMITED.,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Atri Papers Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Vs. Knp-C, Haridwar, Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aafcp1500J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance was made for non-furnishing of evidences for incurring of expenses and 3 therefore the AO has rightly initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 7. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book furnished before us. Perusal of the show- cause notice dated 22.12.2019 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A

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

9: Disallowance of inventory written off 9.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing inventory written off of Rs.25,28,05,028 on the basis that the Appellant submitted only internal documents which do not suffice for allowance of expenditure. 7 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that amount of obsolete inventoiy 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

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

9 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA by the Union is the income of the State, but the question to be answered at the threshold is whether in terms of Clause (1) of Article 289, the income of the appellant/ Authority is the income of the State. Having regard to the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974, particularly

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

9 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA by the Union is the income of the State, but the question to be answered at the threshold is whether in terms of Clause (1) of Article 289, the income of the appellant/ Authority is the income of the State. Having regard to the provisions of the Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974, particularly

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of any/few specific claim(s) of expenditure, would mandatorily lead to invocation of 145(3) of the Act, then these sections would be rendered otiose because, then by estimation of income under best judgment after rejection of accounts being mandatory would not entail specific disallowance/addition for violations of any of sections from 28 to 44DB

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of any/few specific claim(s) of expenditure, would mandatorily lead to invocation of 145(3) of the Act, then these sections would be rendered otiose because, then by estimation of income under best judgment after rejection of accounts being mandatory would not entail specific disallowance/addition for violations of any of sections from 28 to 44DB

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

section 90 read with rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken

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

9. Per contra, it is the submission on behalf of the assessee that the issue relating to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is no longer res Integra and has been considered in the decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) and since the Ld. CIT(A) followed the binding precedents

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

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

BG INTERNATIONAL 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 and stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2017-18

13) of the I.T. Act 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a group entity of BG Group of UK, a non-resident company and also an Associate Enterprise of M/s. BG Exploration & Production India Limited (BGEPIL). The assesssee is engaged in providing support to BG Group entities