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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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

271 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961.” 8. The Assessing Officer has computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,38,95,000/- which was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) by filing a belated appeal. Before the CIT(A), assessee has also filed additional evidence to explain the source of various transaction of investment/purchase

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

271 of the Act. However the TDS AO passed an order dated 29 August 2016 under section 271C levying penalty of Rs.1,86,539 being 100% of the alleged non-deduction of tax at source including interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that, 1) UEPPCB is a statutory organisation constituted under

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

271 of the Act. However the TDS AO passed an order dated 29 August 2016 under section 271C levying penalty of Rs.1,86,539 being 100% of the alleged non-deduction of tax at source including interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that, 1) UEPPCB is a statutory organisation constituted under

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

10 and 11 challenge the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 27IB and 271(l)(c) of the Act. These grounds are dismissed on the ground that mere initiation of penalty is not an appellable matter. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with such part relief, the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal

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

u/s. 144C(5)of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 1.1. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

46 ITR 144 (SC) CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973]\n89 ITR 266 (SC) Morvi Industies Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) Poona\nElectric Supply Company Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) H.M. Kashiparekh\n& Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706 (Bombay) State Bank of Travencore v. CIT\n[1986] 24 Taxman 337/158

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

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised

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

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised