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

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

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

8: Disallowance of branch office expenditure 8.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the branch office expenditure of Rs.3,63,06,772 by treating it as pre-operative in nature. 8.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the Appellant

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

8: Disallowance of branch office expenditure 8.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the branch office expenditure of Rs.3,63,06,772 by treating it as pre-operative in nature. 8.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the Appellant

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

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

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

section 144C(13)of the Income-tax Act (“the Act” for short) in pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 28.02.2020 passed u/s. 144C(5)of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise

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

8,273/- stated to be incurred in the name of JM Bakshi and Co on 02.11.2010. This was also disallowed by the ld AO u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order which was upheld by the ld DRP. 11. The ld AO observed that the assessee has debited an expenses amounting

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)

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

8. Ground No. (iii) raised by the revenue is with regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act through wrongly typed in the ground as section 234C of the Act. This typographical error is hereby condoned by the Bench and we proceed to adjudicate the issue of chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act. Samsung Heavy Industries

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

8. Ground No. (iii) raised by the revenue is with regard to chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act through wrongly typed in the ground as section 234C of the Act. This typographical error is hereby condoned by the Bench and we proceed to adjudicate the issue of chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act. Samsung Heavy Industries

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

144C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 14.05.2013 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.21,32,33,040/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,54,85,276/- out of administrative and other charges, professional and technical services and sub- contract charges

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

144C(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

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

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee raises it’s identical sole substantive grievance in the former twin assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 seeking to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee raises it’s identical sole substantive grievance in the former twin assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 seeking to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee raises it’s identical sole substantive grievance in the former twin assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 seeking to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action