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

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

Disallowance of interest under section 14A. (v) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.8,19,265/- on accrual basis 4. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Government Corporation, filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 declaring tentative losses of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- and (-) Rs.20

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

Disallowance of interest under section 14A. (v) Taxability of contract receipt of Rs.8,19,265/- on accrual basis 4. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Government Corporation, filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 declaring tentative losses of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- and (-) Rs.20

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

4. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred in not adjudicating the grounds of objections in which all the additions on merits have been challenged. 5. That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in not following the directions of DRP in letter and spirit. 6. That the AO has grossly erred in making disallowance

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

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

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

4 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 10,000 Cash 5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section

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

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

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

4. In view of the directions of the DRP, as mentioned above, fresh opportunity was accorded to the assessee by notice dated 28.10.2015, to furnish all evidence by 16.11.2015 which assessee would like to rely upon and which have not been filed earlier during assessment proceedings. Vide reply dated 16.11.2015 and 24.11.2015 written submissions alongwith evidences were Died

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