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

45,850/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.12.2016 at the business and residential premises of M/s. Kaveri Jewellery group of cases. The premises of the assessee was also dated 23.11.2016 issued by Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kanpur, authorizing to search premises situated at 28, Feet Road, Dehradun & Pahadi Gali

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

section 90 read with rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. 12. It was further submitted that even in the context of 80IA(7), 10A(5) etc, wherein there is specific provision for disallowance of deduction/exemption if audit report is not filed along with the return, various High Courts have taken

ANUJ KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Anuj Kumar Vs. Acit Dcit Central Circle, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Investigation Wing, Cross Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan: Aetpk0635A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Chatterjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

disallowed. But, as per AO, no explanation with regard to the source of the expenditure could be submitted by the assessee. Further, the AO stated that on examination of the assessee's sole saving bank account bearing no. 1326000100112409 with Punjab National Bank, Haripur, Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, it is observed that, the assessee had nil cash withdrawal from his said

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

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

45. As far as payment to M/s. CAE Aviation Dubai, is concerned, the CIT(A) held that the payment is not in the nature of Royalty. The question whether it is FTS does not arise because of the absence of a clause relating to FTS in the DTAA regarding FTS and the settled position of law that in the absence

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

45. As far as payment to M/s. CAE Aviation Dubai, is concerned, the CIT(A) held that the payment is not in the nature of Royalty. The question whether it is FTS does not arise because of the absence of a clause relating to FTS in the DTAA regarding FTS and the settled position of law that in the absence

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

45. As far as payment to M/s. CAE Aviation Dubai, is concerned, the CIT(A) held that the payment is not in the nature of Royalty. The question whether it is FTS does not arise because of the absence of a clause relating to FTS in the DTAA regarding FTS and the settled position of law that in the absence

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

disallowance of expenses on various grounds. The assessee pleaded before the ld AO that its income from the execution of the two contracts should be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. The assessee also gave detailed note on contract income earned by it with ONGC, Petrogas E&P LLC. As under:- 3.0 Detailed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

45,563/- was 14.56% of the total revenue of the for inside India work which was Rs. crore. The invoices raised by the assessee for inside India activity were to the tune of Rs. 3,25,82,569/- which have been listed at para 5 of the assessment order. It was further noticed out of total expenses incurred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

45,563/- was 14.56% of the total revenue of the for inside India work which was Rs. crore. The invoices raised by the assessee for inside India activity were to the tune of Rs. 3,25,82,569/- which have been listed at para 5 of the assessment order. It was further noticed out of total expenses incurred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WESTERN GECO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, HARYANA

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

45,762/- in respect of its contracts with Oil Natural Gas ACIT vs. Western Geco International Ltd. Corporation Limited for hiring of services for 4C-3D OBN data processing & interpretation of data D1 to be in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 11/03/2024

NEERAJ SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT ACIT CEN CIR , DDN , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

45,570 based on loose paper containing rough workings that have no relation to the appellant's business. These papers neither mention the appellant's name nor the business, and the amounts listed were never treated as expenditures by the appellant. Treating these amounts as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C is inappropriate because it disregards the inherent requirement of this

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

45,000/- in the return of income filed by the assessee. 3. During the year under appeal, assessee had sold a property and purchased another property and claimed deduction of INR 1,90,86,224/- u/s 54F of the Act which was disallowed by holding that the assessee is owner of more than one residential property. Besides this, an addition

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

45 to 46, 47 to 55, 56 to 91 and 92 to 100 of PB). Both learned AO and CIT (A) have failed to rebut the aforesaid documentary evidences so furnished by assessee and merely made ad-hoc disallowance of 25% that too without any basis, as such, it is prayed that the ad-hoc addition so made by learned

SAWINDER JEET SINGH KALER,NANITAL vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), , NANITAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Sawinder Jeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaler, Ward-2(3)(1), Gol Ghar, Mallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand Pan :Alypk9431G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. The assessee’s twin substantive grounds herein seek to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action, inter alia, disallowing his agricultural income of Rs.9

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 234B and 234C of the Act is erroneous and\ndeserves to be deleted.\nThe above grounds are without prejudice to each other and the\nAppellant craves leave to add, to amend, to delete and/or to modify all\nor any of the fore going ground(s) of appeal.”\nGround of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is general in\nnature