SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

4 | P a g e ITA Nos. 21 to 23/DDN/2019 C.O. Nos. 20 & 21/DDN/2019 Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences and submit a report. After examining the additional evidences, the Assessing Officer furnished two reports to learned Commissioner (Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and materials on record as well

SIDHARTH BUILDWELL LLP,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, C- 1(2)(1), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansidharth Buildwell Llp Vs. Acit, 1, Darshiningate, Kanwali, Circle 1(2)(1), Kanwali B.O. Dehradun Haripuram, Dehradun Pan: Acufs6966M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Sachev, Ca Revenue By: Sh. A.S.Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Order : 27.02.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.11.2017 Declaring Income At Rs. 95,08,920/- For Assessment Year 2017- 18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reasons “Higher Turnover Reported In Service Tax Return As Compared To Itr, Large Increase In Unsecured Loans During The Year, Real Estate Business

250/- may not be added to its income. Since, there was no response from the assessee, he proceeded to make the above said additions u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi. Several notices were issued to the assessee for hearing however

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [\"the Act\"] arising from the assessment order dated\n21.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to\n assessment year 2017-18.\n\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm,\nengaged in the development of real estate and in construction\nactivities. The return

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („Act‟), on the following grounds: Taxability of revenues from offshore supply of imported material 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that revenues received by the Appellant from offshore supply of imported material amounting to Rs 1,898,390,096 are taxable under section 44BB

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm come into existence w.e.f. 01/04/2011 and was engaged in the M/s Nanak Chand Associates vs. ITO business of running of Wine shops in Garwhal Region. The return of income was filed on 01/10/2012 declaring

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

250(4) from the AO on addl. evidence furnished, without passing any separate order u/r 46A(2) to show that the conditions for filing addl. evidence u/r 46A(1) are satisfied, thereby violating the principles of admissions of addl. evidence as explained in Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Guj). That the powers of CIT(A) to admit or reject

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated ITA Nos.178 & 179/Del/2024 14.03.2023 of the Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) under Sections 147/144 read with section 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 05.09.2023 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for assessment year

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated ITA Nos.178 & 179/Del/2024 14.03.2023 of the Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) under Sections 147/144 read with section 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 05.09.2023 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for assessment year

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 111, DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD vs. M/S SURYANCHAL FURNITECH, BAHADRABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

250/- as on 31.03.2016. The list of sundry debtors as on 31.03.2016 submitted by the appellant to the AO is as under: sundry debtors for A.Y.2016 sundry debtors for A.Y.2016-17 on 29.09.2016 i.e. before i.e. before 08.11.2016 i.e. date of declaration of demonetization and 08.11.2016 i.e. date of declaration of demonetization and 08.11.2016 i.e. date of declaration of demonetization

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment orders, all dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment orders, all dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal