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

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

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

55 Therefore, primary the disallowances of Rs.46,03,13,788/- includes a sum of Rs.22,09,83,295/- for purchase of seismic data and balance amount primarily with respect to time writing cost and development expenses. The time writing charges as it is explained by the Assessee are for the purpose of drilling and subsurface inputs, analysis and administrative expenses

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

55 Therefore, primary the disallowances of Rs.46,03,13,788/- includes a sum of Rs.22,09,83,295/- for purchase of seismic data and balance amount primarily with respect to time writing cost and development expenses. The time writing charges as it is explained by the Assessee are for the purpose of drilling and subsurface inputs, analysis and administrative expenses

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

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

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

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

2,12,426 have been suo-moto made by the assessee. Therefore, to prevent double addition, the difference of Rs. 8,65,98,743 was added by the AO to the total income. The AO proposed to disallow the expenses by alleging that since the said expenses had been incurred for prospecting new business opportunities, therefore, the same were

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 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

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

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

2) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact by confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Imposed by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessment being carried out under Section 40A(3). The addition was made solely because the appellant did not provide an explanation

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions made therein passed by the Assessing officer u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions made therein passed by the Assessing officer u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions made therein passed by the Assessing officer u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions made therein passed by the Assessing officer u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred