SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, 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.,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

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. (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

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

reassessment order under Section 148 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act was passed. Addition was not made for the first reason. In the given facts, the assertion by the Revenue that inquiry and verification in re the bank account was not made is ex-facie incorrect. This being the position, this is not a case of failure

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

reassessment order. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or vary the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual and proprietrix of M/s Hindustan Asbestos & Ferro Alloys , Haridwar, engaged in the business of supplying industrial ferro

MASCOT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTARAKHAND vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, -

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mascot Fastners Pvt. Vs. National Faceless Ltd, Assessment Centre, Plot No. B-155, Eldeco, Sidcul, Delhi Industrial Park, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, 262 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm4504H Assessee By : Shri Atul Ninawat, Partner Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

27,086/- and its eligibility for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The assessee submitted the details vide letter dated 12-12-2015. The assessee drew the attention similarly with regard to receipts from job work amounting to Rs 2,37,192/- and its eligibility to claim deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The Learned AO raised specific

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

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind

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

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind

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

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind

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

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding Shri Krishna Singh Educational Trust vs. DCIT of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegiums comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

27,86,019/-. Penalty orders were also passed for non-compliance with notices.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the notice u/s 148 and subsequent notices were not served on the assessee at the correct address or email ID. Consequently, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

27,86,019/-\nwas made on account of deposits in bank account as unexplained\nu/s 69A of the Act.\n5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.\nCIT(A) who vide order dated 03.04.2024, dismissed the appeal of\nthe assessee.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal\nbefore the Tribunal by taking

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

Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorise the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression "approved" says nothing. It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing

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

Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorise the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression "approved" says nothing. It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing