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

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

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) were deemed non-est and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "250", "69A", "234A

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

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 148 and subsequent notices were not served on the assessee at the correct address or email ID. Consequently, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "69A", "250", "142(1)", "234A

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is\npremature at this stage and thus, dismissed.\nPage | 17\nITA No.69/DDN/2024\n24 Ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee is with respect to\ncharging of interest u/s 234A whereas the assessee though the return\nof income was filed within the extended due date.\n25. Heard both the parties

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

234A of Rs.63,42,30,450 without appreciating the fact that the return was filed within the due date. Ground No. 20: General 20.1 The Appellant submits that the AO, TPO and DRP have erred in arriving various unwarranted and erroneous conclusions unsupported by any relevant material in deciding the case. 20.2 The AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under

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

234A of Rs.63,42,30,450 without appreciating the fact that the return was filed within the due date. Ground No. 20: General 20.1 The Appellant submits that the AO, TPO and DRP have erred in arriving various unwarranted and erroneous conclusions unsupported by any relevant material in deciding the case. 20.2 The AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys