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]

42 (Delhi) 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that additional grounds of appeal require verification on the part of the AO therefore, the same should not be admitted at this stage. 5. After considering the submissions and perused the additional ground of appeal taken, we find that the assessee has challenged the validity

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

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.

section 263 of the Act. 2.4. That the PCIT erred in setting aside the reassessment order on aforesaid issue on vague/ general ground, without pointing out the error, much less prejudice, in the 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

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

reassessment proceedings, no arguments were advanced before us, therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 37. Ground number 2 – 5 is with respect to the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that facts are identical to ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and their arguments

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

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

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 144BA." The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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

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

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 144BA." The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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

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

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 144BA." The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

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

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

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 144BA." The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

42,07,835/-. A valuation report from an approved valuer was also filed before the ld AO, which in fact is also acknowledged by the ld AO at page 3 of his assessment order. Further, the ld AO also observed in page 3, the Assessee has received export incentives in the form of Duty Draw Bank claim amounting