INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowance made 4 | P a g e under Section 40(a) will only go to enhance the business profit of an assessee whose income is assessable under section 28 and not otherwise. Hence, provisions of section 40(a) are not applicable in case of charitable trust or institution where income and expenditure is computed in terms of section 11. 8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. THDC INDIA LIMITED, TEHRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of claim of deduction of under section 80IA of the Act on the income derived from the excess provisions written back and the late payment surcharges on debtors was squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own cases for AYs 2008-09 to 2015-16 as mentioned in grounds of appeal; hence, this appeal

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

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

disallowance of Rs.28,080/- under section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the amount of Rs.28,080/- had been paid after the due date specified in the said Provident Act. However, the same had been paid before filing of the ITR. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in this

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned

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 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. RAJESH BALLABH, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) however restricted the disallowance of expenses to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs on the ground that such amount would be reasonable considering the nature of business of the assessee and also in view of the fact that the books of account of the assessee were audited. Page 3 of 8

LAKSAR CO OPERATIVE CANE DEV. UNION LTD.,LAKSAR vs. ITO, W- 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, ROORKEE

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be made under section 143(1) of the Act and (ii) the case laws relied upon by the assessee even after extracting the assessee’s written submission in the impugned order. 6. The grounds raised above clearly show that the Ld. CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the assessee

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 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned

M/S. ALLIED GLASSES,ROORKEE vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Allied Glasses, C/O Tilak Raj & Versus Principal Cit, Associates, Gandhi Vatika, Dehradun Roorkee. Pan: Aamfa7220L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Tilak Raj, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal, Assailing The Order

disallowed 6 | P a g e assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act in respect of interest income earned of Rs.2,20,813/-. In so far as insurance claim is concerned, it is observed that such claim is in respect of damages to the toughened glasses manufactured by the assessee. Whether the insurance claim received

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.

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for an amount of Rs.5,20,550/-. 4 | P a g e 8

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. THE NAINITAL BANK LTD., UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Bleassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance out of interest made by the Assessing Officer has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we hereby affirm the order of CIT(A) and Revenue fails on this aspect. 7. Insofar as the second issue in this appeal is concerned, the same emanates from the action of the AO in scaling down

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 @ 8

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

disallowance of expenses of Rs.7,31,340/- have been made mainly due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee. As the assessee has failed to produce his books of account etc. before the AO and any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

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

8: Disallowance of expenditure incurred on non- producing Production Sharing Contracts (“PSCs”) 8.1. The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 18,84,57,216 incurred on non- producing PSCs. 8.2. The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that set off of expenditure of non-producing PSC against

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

8,273/- on account of payment to JM Bakshi & Co. 9. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 1,22,689/- on payment to Utkal Auto. 10. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 5,41,080/- being

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 90 and same cannot be disallowed for non-compliance of procedural requirement that is prescribed in the Rules. 8