SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

73,45,040/- was disallowed in the reassessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated

ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), NEW DELHI vs. LAXMI ELECTRONICS, , HARIDQAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Versus Laxmi Electronics, F-32, Ward 1(3)(2), New Delhi. Industrial Area, Haridwar. Pan:Aacfl6648R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against Order Dated 31.01.2017 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Agra (Camp At Dehradun) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In Ground No.1, The Revenue Has Challenged Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,57,71,163/- On Account Of Unconfirmed Purchases.

section 133(6) of the Act in respect of the persons/entities from whom the assessee had purchased the goods, revealed that the assessee has inflated his purchases by Rs.3,69,73,180/-. Accordingly, he added back the said amount to the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding 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

section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income.' 4. The Assessee claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31-8-2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. V K AGARWAL & CO., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 As The Assessee Could Not Furnish/Produce The Confirmation Of Unsecured Loan From M/S Tirupati Investment. 3. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Be Set-A-Side & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored.

disallowance of certain expenses for violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the sum of Rs.17,86,353/- ; certain capital loss wrongly claimed as deduction in the sum of Rs.3,73

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

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

Section 80IC of the Act on the ground that the Assessee failed to substantiate that the manufacturing was actually being done at Haridwar unit of the Assessee. 3. It is pertinent to note that, the Assessee approached Hon'ble High Court on the issue of disallowance made on the Duty Draw Back and during the pendency of the proceedings before

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

73,46,160- 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

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

disallowance of Rs. 12,96,73,815/-made on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee for the period under consideration. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts that, it has failed to fully appreciate the energy analysis done by the AO in order to examine

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

disallowance of Rs. 12,96,73,815/-made on account of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee for the period under consideration. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts that, it has failed to fully appreciate the energy analysis done by the AO in order to examine

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

disallowance of expenses on various grounds. The assessee pleaded before the ld AO that its income from the execution of the two contracts should be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. The assessee also gave detailed note on contract income earned by it with ONGC, Petrogas E&P LLC. As under:- 3.0 Detailed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,45,563/- was 14.56% of the total revenue of the for inside India work which was Rs. crore. The invoices raised by the assessee for inside India activity were to the tune of Rs. 3,25,82,569/- which have been listed at para 5 of the assessment order. It was further noticed out of total expenses incurred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

73,45,563/- was 14.56% of the total revenue of the for inside India work which was Rs. crore. The invoices raised by the assessee for inside India activity were to the tune of Rs. 3,25,82,569/- which have been listed at para 5 of the assessment order. It was further noticed out of total expenses incurred

ACIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SCHLUMBERGER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] M.A.No.2/Ddn/2022 [In Ita No.3266/Del/2017] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Schlumberger Vs Acit Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Circle-2, 13-A, 14Th Floor, Building No.10, Subhash Road, Tower Cdlf, Cyber City, Dehradun Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan-Aaics0296H Appellant Respondent

73,768/- which was deleted by Ld. DRP by observing that the said amount was since not transacted through the Profit & Loss Account and thus, no expenditure was claimed. Therefore, the same could not be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. 3. Against the said observation of Ld. DRP, the Revenue has filed the appeal before the tribunal. However

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

disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against the same; as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the business of power generation. It had receipt of Rs.2,14,15,81,598/ from sale of power. It also had receipt of Rs.2,43,02,346/ from interest. After deducting 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3064/Del/2013; 3925/Del/2012; 3723/Del/2013 & 3929/Del/2012 various expenses

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

disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against the same; as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the business of power generation. It had receipt of Rs.2,14,15,81,598/ from sale of power. It also had receipt of Rs.2,43,02,346/ from interest. After deducting 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3064/Del/2013; 3925/Del/2012; 3723/Del/2013 & 3929/Del/2012 various expenses

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

disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against the same; as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the business of power generation. It had receipt of Rs.2,14,15,81,598/ from sale of power. It also had receipt of Rs.2,43,02,346/ from interest. After deducting 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3064/Del/2013; 3925/Del/2012; 3723/Del/2013 & 3929/Del/2012 various expenses

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

disallowing netting of the interest expenditure against the same; as under: “The assessee company is engaged in the business of power generation. It had receipt of Rs.2,14,15,81,598/ from sale of power. It also had receipt of Rs.2,43,02,346/ from interest. After deducting 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3064/Del/2013; 3925/Del/2012; 3723/Del/2013 & 3929/Del/2012 various expenses

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

section 80IC of the I.T. Act 1961 and produced all the relevant documents in support of its claim. 4. That Ld. Authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of deprecation f Rs. 3,82,226/- on the fixed assets purchased during the year and also on fixed assets purchased in previous years and confirming the same and ignoring