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

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

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

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

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

19. We find that various additions were made by learned AO for assessment years 2011-12 to 2015-16 on account of: a. Treating the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the act. b. Disallowing

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

19 January 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun (“AO”) for the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18, pursuant to the directions dated 11 November 2021 [bearing DIN no. ITBA/DRP/S/91/2021- 22/1036841066(1)] issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFF SHORE SERVICES INC , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, ground no.3 is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.241/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc.,Unit No.603, 6Th Floor, Tax, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Satellite Gazebo, East Wing,Guru Road, Hargovindji Marg,Andheri Mumbai, Navi Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Mumbai,Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaach5154M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 194J of the Act. The Ld. AO is seen to have disallowed expenditure claimed under the head “Professional fee”, on account of this alleged mismatch. 1.1 The Revenue is aggrieved with this action and has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: - 1 HALLIBURTON OFF SHORE SERVICES INC. “1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances

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

disallowed, the amount capitalised by the appellant should be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year. 53. The ld. CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld. AO/TPO. 54. After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of the case

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition of Rs.4

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.

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F of Rs 1,90,86,224/-. 4. That on facts and in law the AO and CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that conditions prescribed in clause (a) to proviso of section 54F(1) are satisfied in the present case and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of cash deposit of Rs 19,79,000 into bank during demonetization period since this amount has been deposited out of sale proceeds of jewelry and garments. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the addition made by the Ld. AO solely on the basis

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

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

disallowing the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous.” 8. It is an undisputed fact that the payee/ remittee do not have a PE in India. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the impugned issue in great detail in para 7.1 to para 7.4 of his appellate order qua the nature of service agreement

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

disallowing the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous.” 8. It is an undisputed fact that the payee/ remittee do not have a PE in India. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the impugned issue in great detail in para 7.1 to para 7.4 of his appellate order qua the nature of service agreement

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

disallowing the amount u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous.” 8. It is an undisputed fact that the payee/ remittee do not have a PE in India. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has analysed the impugned issue in great detail in para 7.1 to para 7.4 of his appellate order qua the nature of service agreement

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the expense of Rs.274,500/- by treating it as prior period expense. 10. In law and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not passing an order considering the grounds appealed against by the Assessee after admitting an appeal filed u/s 246A by the Assessee. 11. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances

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

19,295/- has been debited by the assessee in the profit and loss account. Out of this, the ld AO observed that the assessee could not produce the invoices for Rs. 67,33,505/- and accordingly, proceeded to disallow the same as not allowable expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order. Pursuant to the directions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

19,18,042/-, being income attributable to „inside India Operations‟ and to the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE) and income computed at profit rate of 25% thereof. While doing so, the ld AO rejected the books of account and rejected book results shown by the assessee. In AY 2008-09, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file