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

disallowance computed under section 40(a) as per the tax audit report and the amount reported in the return of income. With the consent of the ld. DR the matter is being remanded back to the file of AO for verification of reconciliation. Excess Interest: 59. The assessee submitted that out of the total interest amounting to Rs.1

U C JAIN & SONS,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 3, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2012-13 Uc Jain & Sons, Vs Ito, Ward-3, C/O M/S. Rishabh Velveleen Ltd., Haridwar. 9Th Km. Haridwar Delhi Road, Jwalapur, Haridwar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaahu1616A

234B of the Act.” 5. None appeared for the Assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 6. The Assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, but not produced any documents to show that the Assessee has completed the project and delay in obtaining the completion

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 234B and 234C of the Act is erroneous and\ndeserves to be deleted.\nThe above grounds are without prejudice to each other and the\nAppellant craves leave to add, to amend, to delete and/or to modify all\nor any of the fore going ground(s) of appeal.”\nGround of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is general in\nnature

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33,939/- in the following manner. Thus, the contention is that the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 had in principle accepted

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity at a loss of Rs. 23,33,939/- in the following manner. Thus, the contention is that the AO in A.Y. 2007-08 had in principle accepted

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

234B and 234C of the Act. Addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act Ground of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 5. Brief facts leading to this issue are that during the examination of the books of account, the AO found that assessee has made two entries of cash withdrawals of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 29/10/2011

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

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the decision of the Delhi High Court in GE Packaged Power Inc. has not attained finality as the Department has filed review application in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” The assessee in its cross objection raised the following grounds: - Ground No.1 “On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

disallowance made are uncalled for. 30. That the observation and the additions by the AO and by the CIT(A) made are unjust, bad in law, highly excessive and based on surmise conjecture. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C