BHOPAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR GARHWAL

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 56(2) of the Act, the assessee should be taxed in the hands of the assessee as Income from other sources and which has escaped assessment. Accordingly, case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining approval from the competent authority and in terms of the reassessment

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

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

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

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

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

56. We also bear in mind the pertinent observations made in RRJ Securities when the Court held that merely because an article or thing may have been recovered in the course of a search would not mean that concluded assessments have to "necessarily" be reopened under Section 153C and that those assessments are not liable to be revised unless

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

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

56. We also bear in mind the pertinent observations made in RRJ Securities when the Court held that merely because an article or thing may have been recovered in the course of a search would not mean that concluded assessments have to "necessarily" be reopened under Section 153C and that those assessments are not liable to be revised unless

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

56. We also bear in mind the pertinent observations made in RRJ Securities when the Court held that merely because an article or thing may have been recovered in the course of a search would not mean that concluded assessments have to "necessarily" be reopened under Section 153C and that those assessments are not liable to be revised unless

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

56. We also bear in mind the pertinent observations made in RRJ Securities when the Court held that merely because an article or thing may have been recovered in the course of a search would not mean that concluded assessments have to "necessarily" be reopened under Section 153C and that those assessments are not liable to be revised unless

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

56. We also bear in mind the pertinent observations made in RRJ Securities when the Court held that merely because an article or thing may have been recovered in the course of a search would not mean that concluded assessments have to "necessarily" be reopened under Section 153C and that those assessments are not liable to be revised unless

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 u/s 148 –not pressed 6. Ground No. 2 to 7-Transfer Pricing issue: Intra group services: 7. During year, the intra-group services received by the assessee from the Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.229,61,81,619/- on account of management charges, information technology charges and general administration charges. 8. The said transaction was benchmarked by the appellant

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 u/s 148 –not pressed 6. Ground No. 2 to 7-Transfer Pricing issue: Intra group services: 7. During year, the intra-group services received by the assessee from the Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.229,61,81,619/- on account of management charges, information technology charges and general administration charges. 8. The said transaction was benchmarked by the appellant

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

Section 263 on the basis of suspicions, surmises and conjectures. Shri Abhishek Joshi 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, since opportunity of being heard in person not considered and without hearing the Assessee the order