MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

35 of 2022, 33 of 2022, 41 of 2022, 48 of 2022, 53 of 2022, 67 of 2022. The Page 4 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA Ld. AR also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017. The Ld. AR thus, prayed

LAKSAR CO OPERATIVE CANE DEV. UNION LTD.,LAKSAR vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, ROORKEE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

iv. Because the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that ground no. 1 to 5 and 7 of the grounds of appeal of the appellant pertains to mainly to not allowing the claim of 80P in the case, ignoring the specific ground no. 4 of the original grounds of appeal (Form 35 e-filed) and also the specific ground

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,18,206/- on the ground of application of 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,18,206/- on the ground of application of 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