ITAT Dehradun Judgments — March 2021

ITO, RISHIKESH vs M/S. M.S. NEGI & ASSOCIATES, TEHRI GARHWAL

ITA 2001/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

SHRI DESHPAL SINGH KOHLI,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 2195/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the ground that the quantum of income, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in subsequent proceedings.

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

ITA 4450/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs ACIT, HALDWANI

ITA 4846/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2008-09Dismissed

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

ITA 6127/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN

ITA 6128/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

KRISHAN LAL JAIN,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

ITA 92/DDN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SANDEEP JAIN,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

ITA 96/DDN/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2017-18Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SCHLUMBERGER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs ACIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 6120/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

ANU AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

ITA 68/DDN/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2021AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding savings from earlier years and 'Streedhan' was tenable, considering Indian traditions and the need for cash for business contingencies. The addition was therefore deleted.

SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

ITA 27/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the bank entries were from disclosed accounts and not incriminating material, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

ITA 29/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the bank entries were from disclosed accounts and not incriminating material, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

SAURABH AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

ITA 28/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the bank entries were from disclosed accounts and not incriminating material, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

RUKMAN AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

ITA 26/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Mar 2021AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the bank entries were from disclosed accounts and not incriminating material, the additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

ITA 46/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2021AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits and that the orders levying late fees under Section 201(1A) for periods prior to the amendment on 01.06.2015 were void. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A).

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

ITA 47/DDN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2021AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits and that the orders levying late fees under Section 201(1A) for periods prior to May 31, 2015, were void ab initio as the Assessing Officer lacked the power to process TDS returns and levy such fees. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A).

SAWNEY BUILDERS,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN

ITA 4421/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Mar 2021AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and order were vague, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

MOHD. RAFI,HALDWANI vs ITO, WARD-1(2), HALDWANI

ITA 5965/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Mar 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made the addition on an assumption basis without proper inquiry or cognizance of any DVO report. The addition was considered unjust and not proper under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

ITO, HARIDWAR vs M/S. NAVYUG INDUSTRIES, HARIDWAR

ITA 5746/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to refile if exceptions applied.

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

ITA 6018/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also affirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute deductions under Section 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) based on established precedents.

DGM-HEAD, CORPORATE TAX OIL AMND NATURAL GAS,DEHRADUN vs DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

ITA 6407/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: Fixed5 Mar 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

SHRI PURAN VERMA,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 4752/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2006-07Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

SH. HIMANSHU SHUKLA,NEW DELHI vs ITO- 1(4), RUDRAPUR

ITA 6444/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

ONGC AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA,DEHRADUN vs DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 3525/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: Fixed5 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

ONGC AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF PRACTICAL RESERVOIR SOLUTIONS LLC, USA,DEHRADUN vs DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 1331/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: Fixed5 Mar 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

ONGC AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF OPEN JOINT STOCLK COMPANY, DONGIPROSHAKHT, UKRAINE,DEHRADUN vs ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 552/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: Fixed5 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

ONGC AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF FEDERAL STATE UNITARY ENTERPRISE- NATIONAL MINING RESEARCH CENTRE- SKOCHINSKY INSTITUTE OF MINING, RUSSIA,DEHRADUN vs ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 553/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: Fixed5 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

ONGC AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING AND TRAINING LTD., UK,DEHRADUN vs DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 1333/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: Fixed5 Mar 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessees can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs M/S. GANGA REALTORS (P) LTD., DEHRADUN

ITA 4862/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which also applied to pending appeals. The Revenue was given liberty to refile if exceptions applied.

SHRI DURGA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 4753/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs M/S. HILLWAYS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., UTTRAKHAND

ITA 5168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was considered infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

ITO, UTTRAKHAND vs M/S. RUDRA WOODPACK PVT. LTD., ROORKEE

ITA 5239/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 Lakhs.

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,MUMBAI vs DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

ITA 5429/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and received Form-III. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.