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

section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny. Consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.15,29,05,345/- making following additions and disallowances

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

29 April 2022 [bearing DIN no. ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2022-23/1042951632(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 grounds. Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance

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

29 April 2022 [bearing DIN no. ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2022-23/1042951632(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 grounds. Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance

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

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

Section 80IC of the Act on the ground that the Assessee failed to substantiate that the manufacturing was actually being done at Haridwar unit of the Assessee. 3. It is pertinent to note that, the Assessee approached Hon'ble High Court on the issue of disallowance made on the Duty Draw Back and during the pendency of the proceedings before

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

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

29-08-19 declaring total income of Rs. 40,22,790/-. The said return was duly processed by the Learned CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 28-10- 2019. Later, the assessee filed revised return of income electronically in ITR-2 on 30-06-2020 declaring total income of Rs. 47,36,790/- and claimed relief under

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTRANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

NORMAN GORGE WILSON,NOIDA vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),WARD-1, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5667/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Norman George Wilson, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abopw3343B Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

29, 2015 and July 14, 2016. 2 Norman George Wilson Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing

PAUL GERARD JENNER,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEEHRTADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5669/Ddn/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Paul Gerard Jenner, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anwpj5878L Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

29, 2015 and July 14, 2016. 2 Paul Gerard Jenner Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing

JERRY KEMP KARTAR,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5668/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jerry Kemp Kartar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector- Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), 136, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajzpc0774D Assessee By : Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

29, 2015 and July 14, 2016. 2 Jerry Kemp Karter Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the Ld. AO denied natural justice to the appellant and did not grant an opportunity of being head before making the disallowance. Ground No. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing

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)

29,80,127/- by making various additions/ disallowance. Aggrieved by the order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dt. 29.12.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus the assessee is before the Tribunal in the present appeal on the additions / disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee has taken following grounds

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

disallowances made by the ld AO in the assessment would be liable for deletion. Accordingly, the ground nos. 2 to 11 raised by the assessee are allowed and additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 26. With regard to ground raised in seeking correct credit for TDS, the same requires factual verification and hence Ld AO is directed

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 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act for short] is to be allowed in favour of the Revenue as the ld CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s stand that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In view of the concession from the ld AR, the ground no 1 is allowed