SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OIL WELL VARCO PTE. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD),MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CI9RCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

14. We shall now deal with the objection raised by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Income- Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice(s) u/ss.143(2) and 142(1), dated

BABU LAL PATWARI ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(), UTTARAKHAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

iii) Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgements in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. DCIT, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 916 (Delhi) (iv) DCIT v. Rudra Buildwell Homes (P.) Ltd., [2025] 178 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi - Trib.) 5 6. Further, ld. AR submitted that an RTI application was submitted by the assessee asking for whether approval u/s 151 dated

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WORD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

iii) Union of India Vs. M. L. Capoor&ors (1973) AIR 1974 SC 87,97/2 SCC 836. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the assessment orders have been passed in accordance with provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder and the additions have been made by the A.O. after verifying the material on record by deciding

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

iii) Union of India Vs. M. L. Capoor&ors (1973) AIR 1974 SC 87,97/2 SCC 836. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the assessment orders have been passed in accordance with provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder and the additions have been made by the A.O. after verifying the material on record by deciding

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT IN EDUCATION,MUSSOORIE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WORD DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

iii) Union of India Vs. M. L. Capoor&ors (1973) AIR 1974 SC 87,97/2 SCC 836. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the assessment orders have been passed in accordance with provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder and the additions have been made by the A.O. after verifying the material on record by deciding

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. We find that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Act amounting to Rs 37,75,000/- in respect of amount paid to Smt. Sangeeta Singh for purchase of agricultural land vide agreement to sell cum with possession deed dated 30.07.2009. In Page

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

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

14 respectively. 2. Identical issues involved in these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal both on legal issues as well as on merits, we find that the preliminary legal ground raised by the assessee

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

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

14 respectively. 2. Identical issues involved in these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal both on legal issues as well as on merits, we find that the preliminary legal ground raised by the assessee

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

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

14 respectively. 2. Identical issues involved in these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal both on legal issues as well as on merits, we find that the preliminary legal ground raised by the assessee

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

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

14 respectively. 2. Identical issues involved in these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT 3. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal both on legal issues as well as on merits, we find that the preliminary legal ground raised by the assessee

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SHRI RAMESH BATTA, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in both the cases are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue in both the cases are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Ramesh Batta Central Circle, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Vs. Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ramesh Batta Dy. Cit, 81/210, Kaulagarh Central Circle, Vs. Road, Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Shri Ramesh Batta, Central Circle, As Agent Of Smt. Kavita Vs. Dehradun. Ahuja, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

SHRI RAMESH BATTA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in both the cases are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue in both the cases are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Ramesh Batta Central Circle, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Vs. Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ramesh Batta Dy. Cit, 81/210, Kaulagarh Central Circle, Vs. Road, Dehradun. Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Shri Ramesh Batta, Central Circle, As Agent Of Smt. Kavita Vs. Dehradun. Ahuja, 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun-248001. Pan-Abgpb1527N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D