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 40(a) 13.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing amount of Rs. 10,28,82,922 being the difference between the amount reflected in the tax audit report and considered by the Appellant in its computation of income. Ground No. 14: Disallowance of interest incurred on loan taken from BG Asia Pacific

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 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition of Rs.4

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

89,04,947/- claimed on account of hook up and commissioning, the same was paid to 'Offshore Hook up and Construction Services India Pvt. Ltd.' for which the TDS was deducted, hence, the AO Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) allowed the said amount to the assessee. He found that TDS on pre- engineering and survey

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

89,04,947/- claimed on account of hook up and commissioning, the same was paid to 'Offshore Hook up and Construction Services India Pvt. Ltd.' for which the TDS was deducted, hence, the AO Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) allowed the said amount to the assessee. He found that TDS on pre- engineering and survey

BG INTERNATIONAL 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 and stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2017-18

disallowed expenses on the reason that the 6 Stay No. 14/DDN/2020 assessee has not been able to produce the evidence regarding the incurrence of expenses and rendering of services to BGEPIL by relying on decision of 'the Dispute Resolution Panel/ Tribunal for earlier years The AO also rejected the contention of the assessee that all the services provided to BGEPIL

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTRANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

HARSIL GANGOTRI FRUITS PROCESSING AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA, CIT(A) NOIDA AND ITO RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harsil Gangotri Fruits Vs. Cit(A)-3, Processing & Marketing Pvt. Noida Ltd., Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aacch9436Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Taknor Jhala Fruits Collection Vs. Cit(A)-3 & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Noida Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aaect2878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN :AAECT2878A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.01.2026 ITA Nos.31 & 32/DDN/2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These twin assessee’s ‘M/s. Harsil Gangotri Fruits Processing and Marketing Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s. Taknor Jhala Fruits

TAKNOR JHALA FRUITS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED,RISHIKESH, UTTRAKHAND vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA, CIT(A)-THREE, NOIDA AND ITO RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harsil Gangotri Fruits Vs. Cit(A)-3, Processing & Marketing Pvt. Noida Ltd., Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aacch9436Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Taknor Jhala Fruits Collection Vs. Cit(A)-3 & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Noida Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aaect2878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN :AAECT2878A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.01.2026 ITA Nos.31 & 32/DDN/2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These twin assessee’s ‘M/s. Harsil Gangotri Fruits Processing and Marketing Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘M/s. Taknor Jhala Fruits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

disallowance made by the AO. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed. 12. Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue are with respect to the findings of ld. CIT(A) in disregarding the action of AO in treating the additional income of INR 3.89 crores offered during the course of survey on account

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

SBL PVT. LTD.,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.540/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Sbl Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Iie, Sidcul, Plot No.3, Vs. Office Of Commissioner Sector-12, Ranipur, Haridwar, Of Income Tax, Uttarakhand. Dehradun. Pan No Aaics9462M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance u/s 80IC on sale of scrap of Rs.5,40,548/-. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of homeopathy medicines and cosmetics filed return of income on 20.09.2012 declaring income of Rs.20,89,28,360/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on I.T.A. No. 540/Del/2017 24.03.2015 determined

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

89 (SC). CIT v. Pawan Kumar Jain 298 ITR 443 (Del.), CIT v. Shahi Export House 195 Taxman 163 (Del.) and CIT v. Nectar Life Science Ltd. 2011-TIOL-681- HC-DEL-IT. 7. That without prejudice to other grounds, otherwise too, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not holding that the said interest income