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

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

section 43CA is not applicable in the instance appeal, therefore, requested to please delete the addition of Rs.14, 13,600/- as made by the authorities below. 7. That in facts and circumstances of the case, that the appellant give the discount about 2% as business promotion on the value stamp duty authorities on Rs.7,16,84,200/-and books

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. 6. We find that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal in A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 in ITA Nos. 5856/DEL/2011, 4279/DEL/2012, 5744/DEL/2012 and 2506/DEL/2013. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under: “27. We have considered the submissions

SH.SUDESH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(2)(4), DEHRADUN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not communicating the Notices under Section 250 to the email address as per Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 127 of the income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. That

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

2 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA other words, the net effect of incomings & outgoings (surplus/loss) from the Infrastructure Fund appeared directly in the Balance Sheet. The AO, holding that the Development Charges, being revenue receipts, were nothing but similar to the ‘fee & charges’ routed through Income & Expenditure Account. Undisputedly, the Development Charges had not been separately collected by the assessee

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

2 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA other words, the net effect of incomings & outgoings (surplus/loss) from the Infrastructure Fund appeared directly in the Balance Sheet. The AO, holding that the Development Charges, being revenue receipts, were nothing but similar to the ‘fee & charges’ routed through Income & Expenditure Account. Undisputedly, the Development Charges had not been separately collected by the assessee

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 2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it was seen that the assessee had failed to comply with the terms, as the order of the Govt, of India, Ministry of Power dated 05.11.2001 was not a Gazette Notification, but was only a provisional order. Hence, the assessee company had failed to fulfill this final condition as well. In view

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

disallowed the same u/s 37(1) of the Act in the draft assessment order which was upheld by the ld DRP. 15. With the aforesaid observations the ld AO pursuant to the order of the ld DRP passed a final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 30.01.2015 starting the computation of total

AJAY THAKUR ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1)1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun PAN: AFKPT5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CA Department by Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.01.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income

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)

31,45,762/- in respect of its contracts with Oil Natural Gas ACIT vs. Western Geco International Ltd. Corporation Limited for hiring of services for 4C-3D OBN data processing & interpretation of data D1 to be in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 11/03/2024

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

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

31,925/- on account of Duty Draw Back occurred during the year. Subsequently, a notice 2 The DCIT Vs. M/s Sharda Exports u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 08/06/2012for the year under consideration. An assessment order came to be passed on 29/09/2021 under Section 147/143(3) of the Act by making disallowance

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

2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned JCITA was justified in upholding the action of the Learned AO in denying the foreign tax credit of Rs 5,72,956/- for the reason that Form No. 67 was filed Bhupendra Bora beyond

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)

2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)/AO has erred in disallowing the cost of material without appreciating the same was incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of the business.” 3. Facts shows that assessee is a non- resident, nondomestic company for the purpose of Indian taxation. It has entered into a Consortium

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

31. The issue is to be examined in the above background. Valid returns sustainable in law are the returns filed by the assessees in response to notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Act, consequent to the search action carried out under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 32. How the requirement of section

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

31. At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the matter stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee own case for AY 2010-11 as well as for subsequent years. For the sake of ready reference the relevant part of the order is reproduced herewith: “55 Therefore, primary the disallowances of Rs.46

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

31. At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the matter stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee own case for AY 2010-11 as well as for subsequent years. For the sake of ready reference the relevant part of the order is reproduced herewith: “55 Therefore, primary the disallowances of Rs.46

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

2. Brief facts of the case: The appellant is a company established under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, with its primary mission to extend support to ex- servicemen and their dependents through the provision of employment, financial assistance, loans, and grants, as well as offering training for entrepreneurship. The appellant primarily earns its income through manpower deployment contracts

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

2 Stay No. 14/DDN/2020 the AO noted that the assessee received the payments from BGEPIL, a company registered in the Cayman Islands. In the notes given with the statement of income it has been stated that BGIL has received the following payments totalling to Rs. 1,86,32,25,025/- said to be on account of services provided on cost

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

section 54B of the Act be allowed to assessee - appellant. ISSUE NO. 2 IS WITH REGARDS TO DENIAL OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF A SUM OF RS. 5,33,063/- 8. In this regards, it is most humbly submitted that the assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition of a sum of Rs. 31,26,815/-, out of which