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

41,080/- being payment to NOV Brandt Oilfield. 11. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 20,22,921/- being payment to Global Marine Technologies. 12. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in not allowing the assessee the proper and due credit

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, it appealed before the Tribunal. Now, we have been tasked to decide this appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the State Government, vide GO No.152/9-A-1-1998 dated 15.01.1998, authorized

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, it appealed before the Tribunal. Now, we have been tasked to decide this appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the State Government, vide GO No.152/9-A-1-1998 dated 15.01.1998, authorized

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). We find the grounds raised by the assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the case of Manav Johar in ITA No. 7092/Del/2017 A.Y. 2010-11. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed in Para

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

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

41. It is in the light of the above discussion that we have to consider the two relevant decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, F-Bench, Mumbai in the case of Mr. Faisal Abbas vs DCIT, in ITA Nos.3485 & 3487/Mum/2010 dated 25-10-2011 has held that the return of income filed under section

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

section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other grounds. Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 1.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing adjustment

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

section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other grounds. Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 1.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing adjustment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer at Rs.7,41,87,950.00 as against declaring Income at Rs.28,25,510.00. The CIT (A) has erred

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

disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer at Rs.7,41,87,950.00 as against declaring Income at Rs.28,25,510.00. The CIT (A) has erred

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

disallowance of exemption under section 54 of the income tax act is devoid of any merit. He submitted that assessee has sold the property for ₹ 10 lakhs on 3/1/2009. The land was purchased by the assessee for ₹ 8 19400 on 7/10/2008 and c== house was constructed in FY 2009-10. He showed the withdrawal made by the assessee from

ANAND FOODS,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 141/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Anand Foods, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Matta Garg & Co., Ward-2(2)(1), 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Kashipur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablfa3643B Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1077083626(1) Dated 10.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

disallowing it’s section 80IB(11A) deduction claim of Rs.79,97,988/-, we notice that the sole reason thereof appears 2 Anand Foods to be non-filing/submission of it’s Form 10CCB tax audit report on or before the prescribed due date. 4. Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had filed/uploaded the above