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]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

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]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

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]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OIL WELL VARCO PTE. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD),MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CI9RCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

BABU LAL PATWARI ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(), UTTARAKHAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

5 6. Further, ld. AR submitted that an RTI application was submitted by the assessee asking for whether approval u/s 151 dated 31.03.2021 in the case of the assessee for AY 2014-15 was digitally signed/physically signed and if you, kindly supply the duly signed copy of the approval dated 31.03.2021. In response to the said RTI application

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

reassess all the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the "relevant assessment year" as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is ITA No. 105 & 106/DDN/2024 clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. 7. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

reassess all the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the "relevant assessment year" as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is ITA No. 105 & 106/DDN/2024 clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. 7. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

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

reassess all the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the "relevant assessment year" as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. 6. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

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

reassess all the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the "relevant assessment year" as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. 6. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

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

reassess all the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the "relevant assessment year" as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above. 6. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 139(4) of the Act to the assessee, how there could be any satisfaction on the part of the learned AO to conclude that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Hence, the very basis of reopening deserves to be quashed for want of any satisfaction that could be legally recorded. The reopening made by learned AO deserves

MASCOT FASTNERS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTARAKHAND vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, -

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mascot Fastners Pvt. Vs. National Faceless Ltd, Assessment Centre, Plot No. B-155, Eldeco, Sidcul, Delhi Industrial Park, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar, 262 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm4504H Assessee By : Shri Atul Ninawat, Partner Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

5. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, the Learned AO raised specific query vide notice dated 8-12-2015 with regard to sale of scrap amounting to Rs 9,27,086/- and its eligibility for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The assessee submitted the details vide letter dated

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 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 and 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

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

reassessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He thus requested for the confirmation of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. 10. Heard both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the sole issue is whether the AO had made proper and sufficient enquiries

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.

reassessment passed by the ACIT u/s 34(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence is bad in law.” 4. In the present memorandum of appeal no attempt has been made by the Revenue to aver whether in fact there was an order under Section 127 of the Act transferring the case to the ACIT, Circle 34(1). That