ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer from investigation he considered the entry for export of 70 lacs as bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account of bogus

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account of bogus

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

68 of the Act as alleged that in absence of any documentary proof. 2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked the fact that there is not an iota of evidence much less direct and circumstantial evidence to support the allegation that income declared from agriculture is income from undisclosed sources. 2.4 That the learned Commissioner (Appeals

SUNIL SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him From Time To Time

section 68 of the Act itself would not come into operation. On this limited count itself, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. Sunil Srivastava vs. ITO 9. On the contrary, the assessee tried to furnish the evidences that were available with him to prove that he had procured a contract to supply man power

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

deduction under section 10A of the Act were set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to frame the assessment afresh. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer vide para 4.2.1 of ITAT order dated 17th July, 2012, which reads as under: "4.2.1 As a view has already been taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment

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

deduction for the obsolete inventory written off u/s 37(1) of the Act and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 266 ITR 418 (Bom.), affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment reported in 295 ITR 451. The ld. AR for the taxpayer also contended

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)

deductible from the receipts, which in tune, are added back under section 68. The addition of Rs.30,00,000/- is confirmed

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

deducted by the income-tax authorities on interest on income-tax refund. Ground No. 12: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 12.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying interest under section 234A of the Act whereas the Appellant filed the return of income within the due date applicable to it under

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. HIMALAYAN AUTOERA (INDIA) PVT. LTD., PANTNAGAR

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2012 -13

68, Sector-IIDC, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar PAN No.AACCH0708D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant Smt. Mayank Prabha Tomar, Sr. DR Respondent Sh. Pranav Yadav, Advocate Date of hearing: 26/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 26/08/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Haldwani dated 19.12.2016 pertaining to A.Y.2012-13. 2. The solitary grievance

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue had taken all the adverse findings pointed out by the auditor appointed by the Revenue but not the loss determined by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. It was submitted that since the loss worked/determined out/by the auditor happened to be more than