AJAY THAKUR ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1)1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.19,46,500/- in very terms. 3 | P a g e 7. Learned counsel submits that the assessee’s second substantive issue canvassed in the instant appeal challenges both the lower authorities’ action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.12 lakhs which has been held liable to be assessed under section 115BBE

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing standby I.T.A.No.6114/Del/2017 & CO No. 13/Del/2018 charges totaling to Rs.54,600,000/- on the ground of business exigency and business prudence not proved by the appellant.” 2. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the assessee challenged the validity of the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/144C r.w.s. 254 of the Income

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

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

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

46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the business premises and the residential premises of the Manjeet Johar group of cases on 23.12.2014. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,,H.P. vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S JAI PRAKASH POWER VENTURE LTD., H.P.

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 57 of the IT Act. 5. Both the parties next invite our attention to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion dismissing the assessee’s lower appeal thereby upholding the Assessing Officer’s action not only rejecting its claim of interest income sought to be treated under the head “business” but also further disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2 Reena Verma 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that section 40A (3) of the Act is wholly in applicable to the facts of the appellant since payments were covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and as such disallowance sustained is contrary to law and facts and hence untenable

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

2 of the Financial Statements for the year under consideration wherein, it has been mentioned that the financial statements have been prepared to comply in all material aspects with the accounting standards notified under Section 211 (3C) [Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 as amended and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 42. Supporting documents (duly acknowledged by senior

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

2 of the Financial Statements for the year under consideration wherein, it has been mentioned that the financial statements have been prepared to comply in all material aspects with the accounting standards notified under Section 211 (3C) [Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 as amended and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 42. Supporting documents (duly acknowledged by senior

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

46,160- was disallowed by the AO in the original assessment order dated 30.3.2005. Therefore, out of Rs. 1114.68 lacs, Rs. 834.22 lacs already stood disallowed in the original assessment order. The balance amount represented actual write off which was palpably clear from page 2 of the impugned order itself. No deduction on account of any such provision was, therefore

SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

46,72,000/- by treating the same as residential and thus made the addition of the differential value of Rs.30,14,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Besides this adhoc disallowance

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

section 54B of the Act be allowed to assessee - appellant. ISSUE NO. 2 IS WITH REGARDS TO DENIAL OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF A SUM OF RS. 5,33,063/- 8. In this regards, it is most humbly submitted that the assessee had claimed indexed cost of acquisition of a sum of Rs. 31,26,815/-, out of which

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed by the ld AO after holding „inside India revenue