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 42(1) of the Act. Accordingly, such expenses incurred by the appellant were held to be in the nature of head office expenditure allowable only to the extent of 5% of the adjusted total income of the appellant. The AO did not, however, make any addition since the said expenses had already been disallowed

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 37 (1) of the act. Now it needs to be examined, whether the Assessee has incurred expenditure for the purposes of its business or not. The Assessee has stated that it has incurred such expenditure having regard to its standard of operation and the quality of execution work, safety of its employees in the environment. These expenses are required

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 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was NIL. 2. The order of the ld.CIT(Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company incorporated on 12th February, 2001 by Government of Uttarakhand for management of running generating stations, development

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

66,12,849. 7. Findings 7.1. I have considered the submissions and grounds of appeal of the appellant carefully. The assessment order u/s 143(3) has been perused. The details as submitted have been examined. The grounds of appeal 1 to 4 are taken together as it is effectively directed against addition of Rs.34,74,000/- u/s 69A which

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

66,870,483/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 144/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) in 2 consonance with directions of the Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) at Rs. 106,810,379/-. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal to Income Tax Appellate

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

1), dated 24.05.2024 involving proceedings under sections 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We next note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had in fact

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 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

M/S. SARASWATI DYNAMICS PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saraswati Dynamics Acit Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haridwar C-7, Industrial Estate, Roorkee Pan No.Aaecs6262M (Appellant) (Respondent)

66,500/- and after sale service amounting to Rs. 17,45,895/- is allowed proportionately from the above income. The total of above expenses comes to Rs.l,31,18,538/-. The expenses are allowed only on job work and AMC & Repair charges. The total of AMC & repair charges and job work comes to Rs. 1,39,79,805/-. By applying