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

disallow Rs.3,43,90,634/- being the expenses holding that since the said expenses had been incurred for prospecting new business opportunities, therefore, the same were to be treated as pre-operative in nature and not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that since the branch office would not earn any income in future, therefore

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

disallow Rs.3,43,90,634/- being the expenses holding that since the said expenses had been incurred for prospecting new business opportunities, therefore, the same were to be treated as pre-operative in nature and not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that since the branch office would not earn any income in future, therefore

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

section 144C(13)of the Income-tax Act (“the Act” for short) in pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 28.02.2020 passed u/s. 144C(5)of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 14.05.2013 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.21,32,33,040/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2,54,85,276/- out of administrative and other charges, professional and technical services and sub- contract charges of Rs.7,64,55

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 37(1) of the Act. The AO further alleged that since the branch office would not earn any income in future, therefore, no expenditure would be allowed under the matching principle. The DRP upheld the addition proposed by the AO by stating that similar disallowance has also been made for AY 2013-14 11. After hearing both sides

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

55,250/-, gift claim from husband of Rs.9,00,000/- followed by 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

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

HIMANSHU SHUKLA,RUDRAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance made on account of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Checkmate

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

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 AO be deleted

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

55,221/- and paid cash of Rs. 5 lakhs on 27.03.2021. Accordingly, the ld AO directed the assessee to explain the nature of aforesaid purchase of Rs. 5 lakh together with its source and also show caused as to why the said expenditure be not disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the said image

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowing the claim of the assessee riled upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MSCO Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India AIR 1985 SC 76. However, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that the word "industry" has many meaning and that it is hazardous to interpret a word in accordance

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 153A of the Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. The DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun was not competent to pass the Assessment Order as the order u/s 127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent