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

127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent facts and hence is unsustainable in law. 29. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly constructed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/ disallowance

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

127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent facts and hence is unsustainable in law. 29. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly constructed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/ disallowance

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

127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent facts and hence is unsustainable in law. 29. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly constructed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/ disallowance

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

127 was not valid and legal order. 28. That the order of the Ld CIT(A) in confirming the assessment is based on misconceived and erroneous assumption and on non- existent facts and hence is unsustainable in law. 29. That the evidence filed and materials available on record have not been properly constructed and judiciously interpreted, hence the addition/ disallowance

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

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

127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and materials. Without prejudice

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

127 of the Act dated 05.02.2013 was passed by CIT, Kurukshetra to transfer the case of the assessee to Central Circle, Dehradun. A notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 17.03.2014 for all the assessment years. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

127 of the Act dated 05.02.2013 was passed by CIT, Kurukshetra to transfer the case of the assessee to Central Circle, Dehradun. A notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 17.03.2014 for all the assessment years. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

127 of the Act dated 05.02.2013 was passed by CIT, Kurukshetra to transfer the case of the assessee to Central Circle, Dehradun. A notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 17.03.2014 for all the assessment years. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

127 of the Act dated 05.02.2013 was passed by CIT, Kurukshetra to transfer the case of the assessee to Central Circle, Dehradun. A notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 17.03.2014 for all the assessment years. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income

NAMITA AGRAWAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, INCOME TAX OFFICE ,DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Namita Agrawal, Vs Dcit, 36/1, E C Road, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand-248001 Dehradun Pan-Afspa0668P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. & Shri Naman Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 Order

127 for which no information/consent of the appellant is taken before passing the order. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,35,000 on account of alleged cash paid for the purchase of plot, without confronting the seized material and any corroborative material and not providing the same with the copies