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

43 and 44 of the various contracts listed by the honourable Supreme Court in that decision wherein supply, supervision and installation of software was also considered for the purpose of taxability u/s 44 BB of the income tax act. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no point in exclusion of supply of material by the contractor to the principal

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

43 and 44 of the various contracts listed by the honourable Supreme Court in that decision wherein supply, supervision and installation of software was also considered for the purpose of taxability u/s 44 BB of the income tax act. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no point in exclusion of supply of material by the contractor to the principal

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

43 and 44 of the various contracts listed by the honourable Supreme Court in that decision wherein supply, supervision and installation of software was also considered for the purpose of taxability u/s 44 BB of the income tax act. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no point in exclusion of supply of material by the contractor to the principal

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

43 and 44 of the various contracts listed by the honourable Supreme Court in that decision wherein supply, supervision and installation of software was also considered for the purpose of taxability u/s 44 BB of the income tax act. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no point in exclusion of supply of material by the contractor to the principal

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

43 and 44 of the various contracts listed by the honourable Supreme Court in that decision wherein supply, supervision and installation of software was also considered for the purpose of taxability u/s 44 BB of the income tax act. Therefore, it was submitted that there is no point in exclusion of supply of material by the contractor to the principal

BR ASSOCIATES ,UTTARAKAHAND vs. ACIT , RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. B R Associates Vs Acit Jolly Grant, Circle-1(4)(1) Bhaniyawala, Dehradun, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand-248140 Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaqfb6241E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kanwal K.Juneja, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S.Rana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10296/2018-19 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income On 08.10.2016 Declaring Total Income At Inr 46,02,250/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & The Notice Was Issued By Ito, Ward-1(2), Dehradun Thereafter, The Case Was Transferred To Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued & Replies Were Filed By The Assessee. After Considering The Submissions, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 1,93,96,755/- By Making Addition Of Inr 55.00 Lakhs Towards Bogus Advances & Inr 14,13,600/- As Deemed Income & Further Disallowance Of Expenses Of Inr 78,80,905/- Was Made.

43,351/-. The above said factual aspects have not been disputed by the Department. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal of Raipur Bench in the case of DurgaManikanta Traders Vs. ITO, ITA No. 59/RPR/2019 vide Order dated 12.12.2022 while dealing with the similar issue held as under:- “ 13. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both

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

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.”

43(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had further held 3 that as per Explanation 4 of section 2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it was seen that the assessee had failed to comply with the terms, as the order of the Govt, of India, Ministry of Power dated 05.11.2001 was not a Gazette Notification

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, CROSS ROAD vs. RAJU VERMA, CURZON ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, CROSS ROAD vs. RAJU VERMA, CURZON ROAD, DALANWALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

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

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

1 : Reassessment proceedings are without Jurisdiction and bad in law 1.1 The learned AO erred in law and on facts as reasons recorded for reopening the case of the assessee for AY 2015-16 are invalid and cannot form the basis for reassessment. Ground No. 2: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant to its Associated