HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 & 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section147 of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been passed on 17/03/2022 for all the above three

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 & 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section147 of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been passed on 17/03/2022 for all the above three

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2012-13, and 2013-14 & 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section147 of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been passed on 17/03/2022 for all the above three

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

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

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.,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

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2 has also mentioned as under:- “Penalty proceedings 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” 6. After passing the assessment order, the Ld. A.O. has issued notice u/s 274 of the Act for initiation of Penalty Proceedings vide notice dated 10/03/2015. As per the assessment order and the penalty order it is not clear as to on which limb the penalty

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

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

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

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 before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- Revenue’s Appeal

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter- linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three

BEER SINGH BISHT,PAURI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4)(3), KOTHDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. AY: 2014-15 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a retired teacher from Education Department of Uttarakhand. Based on the AIR information, the case

M/S. KOHLI REATORS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2011-12

2. At the time of hearing, learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that the quantum appeal has been decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee, quashing the assessment and the additions made by the Assessing Officer against which penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act has been deleted vide order dated

SMT. NIDHI YADAV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO- W-2(1)(4),, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals on the reasoning that the assessee did not pursue these appeals properly and did not controvert the finding

MRS. NIDHI YADAV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.115/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.117/Ddn/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 Nidhi Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-801, Forest Residency, Ward 2(1)(4), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Income Tax Office, Pin Code: 248014 Rudrapur, Uttarakhand Pan: Acapy5157E (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mohit Dev, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed both appeals on the reasoning that the assessee did not pursue these appeals properly and did not controvert the finding