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

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 148(1), it is mandatory that notice u/s\n148 should be served on the assessee. As observed above, in the\ninstant case, the AO despite of having information of the correct\naddress and correct email id had served the notice u/s 148 as well\nas subsequent notices on the incorrect address and further the\nemail ID which notice

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

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), DEHRADUN vs. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, NANITAL

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Haldwani Be Set Aside That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). However, this plea of the assessee was out-rightly rejected by the assessing officer on the premise that ignorance of law is not an excuse. Accordingly, penalty was imposed as under :- AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 Amount of Rs.1,11,40

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

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues for both the appeals are similar in nature. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 13/DDN/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16: “The Appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues for both the appeals are similar in nature. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 13/DDN/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16: “The Appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation

M/S. VANTAGE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Vantage International Vs Dcit Management Co. (International Taxation), C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Circle-2, Aayakar Bhawan, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 13A, Subhash Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Dehradun (West), Mumbai, Aadcv3089Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Lohia, Ca, Sh. Sanjay Shukla, Ca Respondent By Sh. Naveen Chandra Upadhyaya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

40,953; 2. erred in including reimbursement of service tax of INR 1,34,94,71,889 while computing gross receipts under section 44BB of the Act as opposed to Appellant’s claim for non taxability of such receipts; 3. erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act of INR 7,60,308; 4. erred in initiating penalty

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 16.4 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 ofthe appeal.” 2. Ground

M/S. SARASWATI DYNAMICS PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saraswati Dynamics Acit Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haridwar C-7, Industrial Estate, Roorkee Pan No.Aaecs6262M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IC(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, deduction u/s 80IC of the IT Act is not allowable on this income. 4. However, he noted that some expenses are incurred in connection with earning income from AMC and repair charges and Job work. He asked the assessee to furnish the details of expenses incurred in connection with AMC and repair