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 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1, 2

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 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1, 2

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 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1, 2

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 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1, 2

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 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1, 2

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 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number 1, 2

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED, GADARPUR,GADARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises it’s sole substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.54,56

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

section 27(1) Income Tax Act. 1961 categorically states that penalty would be livable if the assessee conceals particulars of his Income or furnishes Inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment of furnishing of inaccurate alone, the assessee does not ipso facto becomes liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only is the levy

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

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 proceedings under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56,06,82,000 on the ground that the Assessing Officer while\ncalculating the period for LPSC has considered only 10 months on estimate\nbasis whereas debtors carried forward from earlier years are outstanding for\n12 months and the same was required to be adopted for the purpose of\ncalculation of LPSC.\n3.8. The Appellant submits that the mercantile system

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

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

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