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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

2 | P a g e report enclosed with the return found that the assessee did not deduct TDS on certain amounts to which the various provisions of Sections 193 & 194 were applicable. The Assessing Officer held that in relation to the following payments, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS :- i) Payment made to Mrs. Suchita Chougule (architect)-Rs.52

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.

disallowance may substantially be reduced. 11. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the addition as sustained by the CIT (A), NFAC may please be deleted.” Ground of appeal Nos.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are with 5. respect to the jurisdiction of the AO when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO having no jurisdiction

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant for deduction u/s 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") and confirming the addition of income of INR 1,84,28,269/- on account of deduction claimed under section 80IC as made by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 2

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

28,810/- rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act 3. Disallowance of non-genuine sundry 13,76,29,909/- creditors 4. Disallowance of loss on sale of vehicle 2,47,054/- 4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the relief of Rs.12,03,82,566/- out of total addition/disallowance of Rs.14

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

28,810/- rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act 3. Disallowance of non-genuine sundry 13,76,29,909/- creditors 4. Disallowance of loss on sale of vehicle 2,47,054/- 4.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the relief of Rs.12,03,82,566/- out of total addition/disallowance of Rs.14

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

disallowance of expenses on various grounds. The assessee pleaded before the ld AO that its income from the execution of the two contracts should be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. The assessee also gave detailed note on contract income earned by it with ONGC, Petrogas E&P LLC. As under:- 3.0 Detailed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

28 to 41 and sections 43 and 43A, in the case of an 8 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 assessee , being a nonresident, engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils, a sum equal

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

disallowing Rs 2,41,874, as the amount had not been received as Salary in advance, but was a lumpsum settlement for the future service, under a Voluntary Separation Scheme, to relieve all the permanent employees of the Company,( severing the employer employee relationship) approved by the Govt, of India 2.2 The Scheme was not voluntary, since there was included

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.”

2(19AA) of the Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business has a cost. The cost of borrowing

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

28-5-2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification application before the AO on 15-6-2020 & 25-2-2021 and submitted that credit for FTC as claimed in the return should be given. In the rectification order dated 10-3-2021, the AO upheld the action on the ground that the Assessee

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)

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A)has erred in reversing the action of the AO who, having held that the assessee's revenues on account of aforesaid services under contracts with various entities are liable to be taxed u/s 44DA rightly estimated the income of the assessee by applying 25% rate

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

28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific Pte. Limited (“BGAP”) 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing interest of Rs.2

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

28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific Pte. Limited (“BGAP”) 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing interest of Rs.2

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

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

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

2. since the Assessment Order is based on a time barred revised Return. . That the assessment, of income by the Ld AO is erroneous 3. since additions made to the returned income under Section 68 in respect of unsecured loans have not been obtained during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appellant therefore, pray that

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

28,05,028/- on account of inventory written off and also made certain addition/disallowances on account of depreciation. The assessee approached the DRP. The DRP, following its order for the preceding assessment years, upheld the addition made by the TPO by observing as under:- 2 “2.1 Grounds 1 to 7 relate to the transfer pricing adjustment proposed for the international

SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

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

28,000/-. Th AO observed that as per the registered sale deed the stamp value authority had valued the said property at Rs. 46,72,000/- by treating the same as residential and thus made the addition of the differential value of Rs.30,14,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Besides this