SH. ASHOK KUMAR,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

reassessment action itself having been validly initiated. Ashok Kumar vs. ITO 32. Explanation 3, cannot consequently be read as enabling the AO to attempt to either deviate from the reasons originally recorded for initiating action under Section

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

32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013- 14. 8. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that

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

32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013- 14. 8. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that

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

32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013- 14. 8. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that

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

32. That the applicant craves leave to, add, amend, alter and/ or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 7. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee in ITA Nos. 164, 166, 162, 161 & 165/DDN/2019 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013- 14. 8. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

32. The learned AO has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 5564/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that no distinction can be made between receipts from PSC and Non-PSC Partners, ignoring the facts that the receipts from

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

reassessment. Ground No. 2: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 2.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.219,44,33,564 in total towards international transactions pertaining to payment of management service

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

reassessment. Ground No. 2: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated Enterprise (“AE”) 2.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / AO / DRP grossly erred in law and on facts by making an upward transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.219,44,33,564 in total towards international transactions pertaining to payment of management service

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

32 of the paper book filed by assessee, we find that Ld. Pr.CIT has simply mentioned “approved” on the “satisfaction note” submitted by the AO for obtaining the approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. The relevant approval granted is reproduced as under:- 8. As is evident from the above, Ld. Pr.CIT has simply mentioned “approved” just above

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Negi) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehra Dun 3.4 Adjudication of the grounds of appeal requires perusal of bare facts, which are as follows: 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and i. The appellant is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the business of development, purchase and sale

M/S. R.B. ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Negi) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehra Dun 3.4 Adjudication of the grounds of appeal requires perusal of bare facts, which are as follows: 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and i. The appellant is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the business of development, purchase and sale

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. R.B. ENTERPRISES, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Negi) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Dehra Dun 3.4 Adjudication of the grounds of appeal requires perusal of bare facts, which are as follows: 4 | P a g e ITA Nos.3500 & 3501/Del/2017 and i. The appellant is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the business of development, purchase and sale