INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

section 143(3)/147 of the Act on 30.03.2017, wherein the claimed exemption of Rs. 5,82,53,120/- by the appellant was disallowed and added back to its total income.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.03.2017, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.01.2024,allowed the appeal

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

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case the return is not filed within prescribed time. Reference was made to section 80AC

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with various case laws. The said three propositions are as under:- i. “The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with various case laws. The said three propositions are as under:- i. “The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.1,58,559/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with various case laws. The said three propositions are as under:- i. “The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

139(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued till the date of search and, as such, the assessment for the instant year was not pending on the date of search. Thus, the assessment made prior to search had not abated under second proviso to section 153A of the Act and, therefore

SRI GURU SINGH SABHA,NAINITAL vs. ITO(EXEM), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the assessee is barred by the principle of stricter interpretation from claiming section 11 exemption relief herein once it has failed to ensure compliance of filing of tax audit report in Form 10B within the prescribed due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Its case

SRI GURU SINGH SABHA,NAINITAL vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the assessee is barred by the principle of stricter interpretation from claiming section 11 exemption relief herein once it has failed to ensure compliance of filing of tax audit report in Form 10B within the prescribed due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Its case

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose 5 G & T Resources (Europe) Ltd. fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation

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

5: Erroneously questioning of commercial expediency of the Appellant 5.1 The learned TPO / AO / DRP erred in law and on facts by questioning the commercial expediency of the Appellant in availing the intra-group services from its AE. Ground No.6: Disallowance of branch office expenditure 6.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the branch

EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, DEHRADUN

In the result ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiexpress Drilling Systems Llc, Vs. Dict International Taxation, C/O. Nangia & Co, Circle-1, Dehradun A-109, Sector-136, Noida Pan: Aabce6891R (Appellant (Respondent)

Section 144C (3) (b) of The Income Tax Act on 29/0 5 /2015 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 203,786,360/–. 5. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A wherein the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. He dismissed claim of assessee for disallowance