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 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

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 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

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

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition of Rs.4

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,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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

45,72,020/- which is less than the threshold limit of INR 50.00 as provided in section 194Q of the Act, therefore, the provisions of this section are not applicable. A clarification issued by the CBDT dated 13.06.2021 vide Circular No.13/2021 was also relied upon. Ld. CIT(A) after considering these facts and the circular of CBDT has deleted

ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

45,12,620/-.The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.15,79,11,665/- in respect of the units developed at Pant Nagar Industrial Estate, District- Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and BHEL, near Ranipur, Haridwar. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee’s profit consisted of interest on amounts

ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

45,12,620/-.The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.15,79,11,665/- in respect of the units developed at Pant Nagar Industrial Estate, District- Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and BHEL, near Ranipur, Haridwar. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee’s profit consisted of interest on amounts

ITO, WARD- 2(4), DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

45,12,620/-.The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.15,79,11,665/- in respect of the units developed at Pant Nagar Industrial Estate, District- Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and BHEL, near Ranipur, Haridwar. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee’s profit consisted of interest on amounts

ANU AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but through post we have received written submissions of the assessee herself for proceedings with the matter

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