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.,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

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

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

1)(a) which again alludes to "each assessment year" falling within the six AYs or the "relevant assessment year". The aforesaid language is then reiterated in Section 153D and which prescribes that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an AO in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in Section 153A or 153B

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

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

1)(a) which again alludes to "each assessment year" falling within the six AYs or the "relevant assessment year". The aforesaid language is then reiterated in Section 153D and which prescribes that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an AO in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in Section 153A or 153B

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

1)(a) which again alludes to "each assessment year" falling within the six AYs or the "relevant assessment year". The aforesaid language is then reiterated in Section 153D and which prescribes that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an AO in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in Section 153A or 153B

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

1)(a) which again alludes to "each assessment year" falling within the six AYs or the "relevant assessment year". The aforesaid language is then reiterated in Section 153D and which prescribes that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an AO in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in Section 153A or 153B

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

1)(a) which again alludes to "each assessment year" falling within the six AYs or the "relevant assessment year". The aforesaid language is then reiterated in Section 153D and which prescribes that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an AO in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in Section 153A or 153B

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

section 270A of the Act. 12.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 12.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. Since the grounds are common

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

section 270A of the Act. 12.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 12.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. Since the grounds are common

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

reassess it’s net profit “NP” @ 10% on turnover of Rs. 16,61,28,493/-; coming to Rs.1,66,12,849/-; respectively, reading as under: “6.1 The assessee is a partnership firm dealing in the business of liquor. The assessee filed ITR with return loss of Rs.61,02,736/- has shown [17:46, 20/05/2025] RAJESH KUMAR: total turnover

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.”

66,910/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO analysed the history of the assessee which was discussed in the assessment order u/s 143(3) for the A.Y. 2008-09. The AO pointed out that during the course of assessment in the case of assessee, the then Assessing Officer had observed that at the time of creation of UJVNL

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

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

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

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

1. The Ld. (CIT-A) has without going into the facts of the case has sustained the additions of Rs. 22,66,126.00, made by disallowing the application of interest on PACS Deposit Insurance Fund and Agriculture Credit Stabilization Funds. 2. The Ld. CIT(A). CIT-A failed to appreciate that the interest was applied as per Government Guidelines past

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69A is found to be incorrect, and\n- no explanation is given in the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) that if the application of\nSection 69A by AO is found to be incorrect in the current case then under which\nsection the addition of Rs. 1,74,709/- can be sustained against the appellant.\n- most importantly, when