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

1 of section 201 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the second proviso of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and considering the first proviso of section 201 of the Act held that as per the combined reading of both these provisions, no disallowance

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

1) to Section 11(5). Section 13 provides exception to Section 11 wherein such an income can be excluded from the exempt income of the trust. Thus, Section 11 to 13 provides for application of income by a trust for charitable purposes and to that extent, subject to certain conditions, income of the trust is treated to be exempted from

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

1 of section 201 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) relying upon the second proviso of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and considering the first proviso of section 201 of the Act held that as per the combined reading of both these provisions, no disallowance

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 either u/s 37(1) of the Act MB Petroleum Services LLC or section 40

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 relates to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We have gone through the reasoning given

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40

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

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, ground No. 1

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

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

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, ground No. 1

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

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, ground No. 1

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

40(a)(ia): 56. It was submitted that Rs.2,15,39,21,254 reported in Form 3CD comprises Rs.52,14,64,087 pertaining to resident payees and Rs. 1,63,24,57,167 pertaining to non-resident payees. Therefore, the disallowance as per law based on these amounts reported in the tax audit report works out to Rs 1

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

40(a)(ia): 56. It was submitted that Rs.2,15,39,21,254 reported in Form 3CD comprises Rs.52,14,64,087 pertaining to resident payees and Rs. 1,63,24,57,167 pertaining to non-resident payees. Therefore, the disallowance as per law based on these amounts reported in the tax audit report works out to Rs 1

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

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 Section 90/ 90A of the Act on account

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (INDIA) LTD., DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

section 42(1) of the Act. Accordingly, such expenses incurred by the assessee were held to be in the nature of head office expenditure allowable only to the extent of 5% of the adjusted total income of the appellant. The AO did not, however, make any addition since the said expenses had already been disallowed

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

section 42(1) of the Act. Accordingly, such expenses incurred by the assessee were held to be in the nature of head office expenditure allowable only to the extent of 5% of the adjusted total income of the appellant. The AO did not, however, make any addition since the said expenses had already been disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

40,612/- received from the Government since 2006 (vi) Disallowance of interest Rs.65,56,936/- on earmarked fund (vii) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.1,38,08,610/- on accrual basis (viii) Disallowance of interest under section 14A. 3.1 Vide 5 grounds; the Revenue has raised following issues (i) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in ECGI under section 36(1

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

40,612/- received from the Government since 2006 (vi) Disallowance of interest Rs.65,56,936/- on earmarked fund (vii) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.1,38,08,610/- on accrual basis (viii) Disallowance of interest under section 14A. 3.1 Vide 5 grounds; the Revenue has raised following issues (i) Disallowance of employees’ contribution in ECGI under section 36(1

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