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

c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the PAR merely on the basis that contracts are composite contracts involving supply of material and rendering of services without appreciating that a separate consideration has been identified for offshore supply. d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not rejecting the action of the learned AO to reject

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

c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the PAR merely on the basis that contracts are composite contracts involving supply of material and rendering of services without appreciating that a separate consideration has been identified for offshore supply. d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not rejecting the action of the learned AO to reject

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

c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the PAR merely on the basis that contracts are composite contracts involving supply of material and rendering of services without appreciating that a separate consideration has been identified for offshore supply. d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not rejecting the action of the learned AO to reject

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

c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the PAR merely on the basis that contracts are composite contracts involving supply of material and rendering of services without appreciating that a separate consideration has been identified for offshore supply. d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not rejecting the action of the learned AO to reject

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

c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the PAR merely on the basis that contracts are composite contracts involving supply of material and rendering of services without appreciating that a separate consideration has been identified for offshore supply. d. The learned CIT(A) erred in not rejecting the action of the learned AO to reject

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

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDNBHD,MALAYSIA 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

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]

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

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

42,587 in total towards international transactions pertaining to payment of management service and unit charges, IM charges and payroll expenses to its AE. Ground No. 2: Erroneous rejection of Transactional Net Margin Method C'TNMM") and selection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") Method 2.1 The learned TPO / AO / DRP / have erred in law and on facts by disregarding

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

42,587 in total towards international transactions pertaining to payment of management service and unit charges, IM charges and payroll expenses to its AE. Ground No. 2: Erroneous rejection of Transactional Net Margin Method C'TNMM") and selection of Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") Method 2.1 The learned TPO / AO / DRP / have erred in law and on facts by disregarding

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

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

42,37,86) 38,41,085) has been made by the assessee it is clear that the excess carry forward amounting to Ra. 2,03,07,171/ remained un- explanation and untaxed during the course of finalizing assessment order, in the year under consideration. 3 Keeping in view all the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable

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

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

42,37,86) 38,41,085) has been made by the assessee it is clear that the excess carry forward amounting to Ra. 2,03,07,171/ remained un- explanation and untaxed during the course of finalizing assessment order, in the year under consideration. 3 Keeping in view all the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable

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

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

42,37,86) 38,41,085) has been made by the assessee it is clear that the excess carry forward amounting to Ra. 2,03,07,171/ remained un- explanation and untaxed during the course of finalizing assessment order, in the year under consideration. 3 Keeping in view all the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable

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.

c) initiated to revise reassessment order in respect of issues which were not even subject matter of reopening proceedings. 1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, impugned revisionary proceedings were without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law since the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018 sought to be revised was itself without jurisdiction, illegal

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

reassessment for the cases pertaining to AY 2007- 08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and regular assessment for AY 2013-14 was being done, the matter was discussed with the Principal CIT Dehradun, and it was agreed that no additions would be done in those years, in consideration of the appellant having owned up and paid tax on the entire amount

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

1,42,07,835/-. 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, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sharda Exports, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Ward-1(3)(3), 219, Railway Road, Meerut Haridawar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N Dcit, Vs. M/S. Sharda Exports, Central Circle, C/O. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Dehradun 219, Railway Road, Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aayfs1694N

1,42,07,835/-. 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

M/S. JAYCEES PUBLIC SCHOOL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2011-12

C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 ORDER Per Yogesh Kumar U.S., Accountant Member: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun dated 06/09/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the return of income