KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.17,51,912/- being 30

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

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; Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. S. N. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80IC 21,03,842/- to 30

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; Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. S. N. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80IC 21,03,842/- to 30

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance was made. Given the\nnature of the transactions as salary payments, they are fully allowable as business\nexpenditures under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nRelevant Law - Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:\nAny expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

section 201(1) of the Act and he therefore confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1,58,559/- being 30% of the interest

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

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

30-8-2011. 42. In view of the above discussion and relying on the above mentioned decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, we hold that the returns filed by the assessees under section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under section 139(1) by virtue of the law stated in section 153A

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

30-6-2020 and also filed Form No. 67 as a necessary proof of taxes paid in Netherlands on the income tax portal account on 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

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. WINDLASS ENGINEERS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Windlass Engineers & Services Ward 2(5), Dehradun. Pvt. Ltd., 11A, Rajpur Road, Dehrdun. Pan: Aaacw6855C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Virendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2018

section 80IC of the Act, as the assessee can have only one initial assessment year. In that view of the matter, he restricted the deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act to 30% of the business profit. Contesting the disallowance

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

30,51,568/--. 13. Insofar as the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the AO held that the said payment of reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of fee for technical services. As noted by the Id. CIT (A), there is no FTS clause in the India UAE DTAA regarding fee of technical services

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

30,51,568/--. 13. Insofar as the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the AO held that the said payment of reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of fee for technical services. As noted by the Id. CIT (A), there is no FTS clause in the India UAE DTAA regarding fee of technical services

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

30,51,568/--. 13. Insofar as the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is concerned, the AO held that the said payment of reimbursement of expenses is in the nature of fee for technical services. As noted by the Id. CIT (A), there is no FTS clause in the India UAE DTAA regarding fee of technical services

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)

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 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 17/11/2011 from its bank account

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

sections 30 to 43D of the Act as business expenditure. During the year, the following expenses have been debited under the head ‘other expenditure’ in the P&L account:- PACS debit fund – Rs. 2,58,373/- Agricultural credit stabilization fund – Rs. 20,07,753/- Total - Rs. 22,66,126/- 7. The Ld.AO accordingly reopened the assessment by issuing notice

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

sections 30 to 43D of the Act as business expenditure. During the year, the following expenses have been debited under the head ‘other expenditure’ in the P&L account:- PACS debit fund – Rs. 2,58,373/- Agricultural credit stabilization fund – Rs. 20,07,753/- Total - Rs. 22,66,126/- 7. The Ld.AO accordingly reopened the assessment by issuing notice

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

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

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