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

disallow deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 3. Before us, the submission of learned counsel for the assessee is two-fold. Firstly, learned PCIT has not exercised the powers under section 263 of the Act independently, but at the behest of a subordinate authority. Secondly, at the time of assessment, the Assessing Officer has conducted full-fledged enquiry

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

88,96,393 (considering 30% disallowance for payments to non-residents). 57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between the disallowance

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

88,96,393 (considering 30% disallowance for payments to non-residents). 57. As against this, the amount disallowed by the assessee in its return of income is Rs.168,60,13,471/-. 58. It was argued that the issue may be remanded back to the assessing officer so that the appellant can furnish a reconciliation of the difference between the disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFF SHORE SERVICES INC , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, ground no.3 is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.241/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc.,Unit No.603, 6Th Floor, Tax, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Satellite Gazebo, East Wing,Guru Road, Hargovindji Marg,Andheri Mumbai, Navi Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Mumbai,Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaach5154M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made applicable to short deduction of tax at source a- z the disallowance made was deleted. Further the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case o* PCIT Vs. Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 195/2022 dated 14.07.2022 hadalso given the same proposition. The Id CIT(A) however

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 269SS of the Act which prohibits any deposit or loan in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- from any person. Further except making claim that the amounts were received in cash, no evidence in the shape of confirmation etc. of Shri Madan Lal or Smt. Vimla Devi were produced before the lower authorities nor before us, to support the contention

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR vs. NAINI TISSUES LTD, U S NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowed on similar grounds in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O, therefore, restricted the deduction under section 80IC at 30% of the profits i.e., at Rs.11,03,96,671/- and the excess claim of deduction amounting to Rs.25,75,92,232/- was added to the income of the assessee. 6.1. Aggrieved

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made applicable to short deduction of tax at source and the disallowance made was deleted. Further the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 195/2022 dated 14.07.2022 had Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) also

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be made applicable to short deduction of tax at source and the disallowance made was deleted. Further the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 195/2022 dated 14.07.2022 had Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) also

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

88,590/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of business expenditure and Rs.22,500/- u/s 40A(3) in respect of cash paid for purchase of cooler in violation of provisions of section

SHREEVAAS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. On a careful reading of section 115BBE, it is observed that prior to 01.04.2017, there was no restriction in section 115BBE in respect of set off of losses. Only through an amendment made to sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

88,000,00/- 2. The CIT-A) did not appreciate the contention of the appellant while sustaining penalty and missed to note that disallowance of an expense per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and as such do not call for penal action. 3. The Ld. CIT-A) missed to note that

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)

88,033/-. To this, income on account of Duty draw back Rs.3,03,313/-, Misc. Income Rs.4,81,104/-, Profit on sale of fixed assets Rs.4,82,9(12/- and Rent charges Rs.5,40,000/- are added on which no expenses is allowed. The total of such income comes to Rs.l,31,95,362/-. This is found