KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

b. In doing so, AO also went against the order of the TPO which clearly stated that transfer pricing adjustment should be given effect by disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

b. In doing so, AO also went against the order of the TPO which clearly stated that transfer pricing adjustment should be given effect by disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

disallowance may substantially be reduced. 11. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the addition as sustained by the CIT (A), NFAC may please be deleted.” Ground of appeal Nos.1 to 4 raised by the assessee are with 5. respect to the jurisdiction of the AO when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by AO having no jurisdiction

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

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

5. The Revenue at this stage relies on the assessment discussion in para 8 that the learned coordinate bench in ITA No. 449/JP/2018 in case of ITO, Alwar Vs. Sh. Trilok Chand Jain has already decided that the impugned addition, could indeed be made even if the asset concerned is not a capital asset. 6. We are of the considered

SH.SUDESH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(2)(4), DEHRADUN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. 11.10.2022 26.10.2022 No Compliance 3. 27.02.2024 08.03.2024 5.2. As has been brought out above, it is evident and clear that the appellant is not interested in filing any details during the appellate proceedings and avail the opportunity under the principle of natural justice. Neither any written submissions were filed nor any adjournment sought. In such situation, the only conclusion

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of cash deposit of Rs 19,79,000 into bank during demonetization period since this amount has been deposited out of sale proceeds of jewelry and garments. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the addition made by the Ld. AO solely on the basis

BHAWANA AGRWAL,DEHRADUN vs. NFAC-DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhawana Agarwal, Vs. Nfac-Delhi 3/3, Race Course, Dehradun Pan :Aazpa2029C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 56(2)(vii)(b) addition of Rs.29.58 lakhs; respectively, totaling to Rs.64,13,250/-. And that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has accepted the assessee’s net agricultural income of Rs.7,66,575/- only and upheld the latter twin additions. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the assessee

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

2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned JCITA was justified in upholding the action of the Learned AO in denying the foreign tax credit of Rs 5,72,956/- for the reason that Form No. 67 was filed Bhupendra Bora beyond

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)

b) Receipts of INR 13,791,059 on account of GST not to be includible in the revenues chargeable to tax under section 44BB of the Act. c) Interest received on income tax refund of INR 476,230 chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate of 40%. 4. The AO completed the assessment on 11/03/2024 under section

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

section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Besides this adhoc disallowance of Rs. 5.00 lacs was also made out of various expenses. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the addition of Rs. 30.14,500/- made

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

5. That without prejudice to the above the ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/-made by AO at CPC u/s 143(1)(ii) through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income

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

5 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA of Tribunal, then Tribunal can recall order while exercising powers under section 254(2) -Held, yes Whether order of the Tribunal cannot be recalled based on subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court when order of the Tribunal had attained finality between the parties - Held, yes [Paras 21 and 22] [In favour of assessee]" 5.1.1 Further

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

5 ITA No.95 & 96/DDN/2023 MDDA of Tribunal, then Tribunal can recall order while exercising powers under section 254(2) -Held, yes Whether order of the Tribunal cannot be recalled based on subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court when order of the Tribunal had attained finality between the parties - Held, yes [Paras 21 and 22] [In favour of assessee]" 5.1.1 Further

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Thus, from the above, it is amply clear that the DRP has accepted that the issues are similar to AY 2011-12 and they have rejected the request of the assessee to bring it under the purview of section 44BB of the Act. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to ITAT order in assessee

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

5) of the Act. But where the return is filed under section 153A of the Act and there is no statutory time limit for filing of return of income, the powers have been statutorily delegated to the Assessing Officer to prescribe the time limit for filing the return of income while issuing the notice under section 153A

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

5. From the perusal of the original grounds of appeal read with additional grounds of appeal, we find that the core issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the income of the assessee could be subjected to tax in terms of section 44BB of the Act. 6. M/s. MB Petroleum Services LLC is a non-resident company incorporated

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)

5 lacs would not be allowed as the same had not been claimed by way of filing return of income. 9. The assessee furnished yet another computation of income in which the assessee claimed relief u/s 89 of the Act to the tune of R. 2,41,874/-. The said claim of the assessee was found to be in order