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

251 Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) while deciding the issue of mobilization fees has held that when the contracts are indivisible, it is not appropriate to treat the various receipts of the contract differently. Therefore, material used for performance of contract cannot be treated differently than other consideration received. In fact

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

251 Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) while deciding the issue of mobilization fees has held that when the contracts are indivisible, it is not appropriate to treat the various receipts of the contract differently. Therefore, material used for performance of contract cannot be treated differently than other consideration received. In fact

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

251 Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) while deciding the issue of mobilization fees has held that when the contracts are indivisible, it is not appropriate to treat the various receipts of the contract differently. Therefore, material used for performance of contract cannot be treated differently than other consideration received. In fact

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

251 Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) while deciding the issue of mobilization fees has held that when the contracts are indivisible, it is not appropriate to treat the various receipts of the contract differently. Therefore, material used for performance of contract cannot be treated differently than other consideration received. In fact

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

251 Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) while deciding the issue of mobilization fees has held that when the contracts are indivisible, it is not appropriate to treat the various receipts of the contract differently. Therefore, material used for performance of contract cannot be treated differently than other consideration received. In fact

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.

Penalty proceedings 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

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.

Penalty proceedings 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

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