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

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

23-06-2020. Since this Form No. 67 was not filed by the assessee within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act and was ultimately filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Act, the assessee was denied the foreign tax credit of 5,72,956/- by the lower authorities

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication of additional ground for claim of income tax depreciation u/s 32 of the Act also would become academic. In our considered opinion, even though the assessee has offered more

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

1) of the Act. Ground No. 13: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 13.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying consequential interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground No. 14: Violation of principles of natural justice 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring

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

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

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

1,78,88,96,393 (considering 30% disallowance for payments to non-residents). 57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between

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

1,78,88,96,393 (considering 30% disallowance for payments to non-residents). 57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

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

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 of the assessee.As against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present appeal. 5. The ld. DR submitted that

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the CIT(A) decision of A.Y 2006-07. 16. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee has diverted its interest bearing

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the CIT(A) decision of A.Y 2006-07. 16. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee has diverted its interest bearing

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

1), Rishikesh does not have a Jurisdiction over the case, completion of the assessment without proper jurisdiction is illegal and void ab initio, the same may be annulled. 2. That in facts and circumstance of the case, the AO has wrongly disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,23,992/- and for which the appeal was file

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

1), Rishikesh does not have a Jurisdiction over the case, completion of the assessment without proper jurisdiction is illegal and void ab initio, the same may be annulled. 2. That in facts and circumstance of the case, the AO has wrongly disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,23,992/- and for which the appeal was file