AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) were deemed non-est and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271

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 209 (1

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 209 (1

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 209 (1

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 209 (1

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 209 (1

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 209 (1

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 209 (1

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "69A", "250", "142(1)", "234A", "234B", "282" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SH. RAMESH BATTA AS AGENT OF SMT. KAVITA AHUJA, 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

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

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

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

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

b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied minimum @100% tax thereon. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CIT(A). Aggrieved the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Admittedly, survey operation was carried out u/s 133A of the Act in the hands of the partnership firm and Mohd. Shariq. It is important

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

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

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