MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

TDS is required to be made on the net amount of purchases i.e. net of GST and if the amount of GST is reduced from gross value of purchases, the net amount of purchases made from M/s Tripura Enterprises reduced to INR 45,72,020/- which is less than the threshold limit of INR 50.00 as provided in section 194Q

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. 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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter ‘Ld. DR’), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)], requested for upholding of the disallowances, to which the Ld. Counsel seemed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

50,939/-. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to show cause as to why the return of income was filed at nil. In response to such show cause notice, it was stated by the assessee that the business of the assessee company is governed by the accounting standard VII (Revised) and the accounts have been prepared on the basis

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

50,939/-. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to show cause as to why the return of income was filed at nil. In response to such show cause notice, it was stated by the assessee that the business of the assessee company is governed by the accounting standard VII (Revised) and the accounts have been prepared on the basis

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

TDS of Rs.II,95,58,717 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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 43CA of the Act and further deletion of addition of INR\n2,24,34,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act\ntowards cash deposits during demonetization.\n\n6. Regarding Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 taken against the\ndeletion of additions of cash deposit during the demonetization\nperiod in Specified bank notes

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Schlumberger Asia Services Deputy Director Of Income Tax Limited, (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building Dehradun No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan-Aadcs1107J Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Deputy Director Of Income Tax Schlumberger Asia Services (International Taxation), Limited, Dehradun 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan- Aadcs1107J Revenue Assessee Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kappor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr.Dr

TDS has not been given. The Id. AO must do so at the time of giving effect to this order. 10. Ground no. 9 challenges the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. This ground is allowed following the case of Maersk reported in 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. Ground nos. 10 and 11 challenge the initiation of penalty