BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

1) on 04.12.2018. 4. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Jurisdictional ACIT, Rishikesh did not issued or serve any notice u/s 143(2) till the completion of the assessment. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of issue and service of statutory mandatory notice u/s 143(2) within a prescribed limitation period

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

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 payment to NOV Brandt Oilfield. 11. That

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

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

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

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

disallowed if the assessee does not file Form 67 within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that that there are many sections in the Act which specifically deny deduction or exemption or relief in case the return is not filed within prescribed time. Reference was made to section 80AC

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part

M/S HIMALAYAN VACATIONS, P. LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. PAN:AACCH5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.09.2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner

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 AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 1,24,84,806 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 8.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed.” 7. We conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s ONGC revenues’ for all it’s above services rendered

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed.” 7. We conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s ONGC revenues’ for all it’s above services rendered

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

disallowance made by the Ld. AO under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is erroneous. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed.” 7. We conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s ONGC revenues’ for all it’s above services rendered

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

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 144B of the Act is void-ab-initio as the assessment was undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in law by enhancing

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

1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C and 144B of the Act is void-ab-initio as the assessment was undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in law by enhancing

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

9: Disallowance of expenditure incurred on non-producing Production Sharing Contracts (“PSCs”) 9.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.49,37,84,218 incurred on non-producing PSCs. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that set off of expenditure of non- producing PSC against the income

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

9: Disallowance of expenditure incurred on non-producing Production Sharing Contracts (“PSCs”) 9.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.49,37,84,218 incurred on non-producing PSCs. 9.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that set off of expenditure of non- producing PSC against the income