AJAY THAKUR ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1)1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

1 (SC) (FB) which was never considered in the tribunal’s earlier decision. We further draw support from CIT Vs. B.R. Constructions (AP) (1992) 202 ITR 222 (AP) (FB) that such an order of a learned coordinate bench not considering the settled principles of law, does not form a binding precedent. We accordingly accept the assesee’s instant first

BHAWANA AGRWAL,DEHRADUN vs. NFAC-DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhawana Agarwal, Vs. Nfac-Delhi 3/3, Race Course, Dehradun Pan :Aazpa2029C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

1), dated 24.05.2024 involving proceedings under sections 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We next note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had in fact

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

56(2)(vii)(b) and due taxes has been paid in the earlier year is against the principal of accounting and natural justice. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not appreciated the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

56(2)(vii)(b) and due taxes has been paid in the earlier year is against the principal of accounting and natural justice. 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the Authorities below has not appreciated the provisions of section 49(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same is unwarranted and uncalled for. 4. That

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

vii) Confirmation from Trust/ Gaushala to whom agricultural produce (grass, bajra) etc was provided by assessee (kindly see page 238 of PB). viii) Since the produce from land was used for self- consumption, as such, there was no occasion to have reported the said fact to Land/ Revenue Authorities. ix) Request made by assessee to AO for field visit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India and outside India) were attributable to the alleged PE in India and chargeable to tax in India on income computed @25% deemed profit rate. 4. The income has been computed