DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KAMAL JEWELLERS, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

5) of section 250 - Held, yes” Further, the Ld. ITAT Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. J.A. Infracon (P.) Ltd reported at [2025] 171 taxmann.com 228 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) has held as under: “Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report from Assessing Officer and issued notice under section 133(6) parties namely

INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year : 2015-16 Intecsea Asia Pacific N Vs. Acit, International Bhd Taxation, Circle-1, Kpmg Salarpuria Knowledge Dehradun City, Orwell Unit 3, 6Th Floor Sy. No. 83/2, Plot 2, Raidurg, Hyderabad 500081 (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. Pipeline Wall Thickness Selection/Confirmation 6. Pipeline On-Bottom Stability, Thermal Expansion and In- Place Stress Analysis 7. Pipeline Protection/Stability Design 8.Pipeline Free Span Analysis 10 9. Offshore Pipeline Crossing Design 10.Pipeline Cathodic Protection Design 11.Pipelay feasibility study 12.Pipeline Segment heat insulation Design 13. Subsea SSIV system 14. Riser Design Report 15. Riser Clamp Design 16.Pipeline and Riser

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. V K AGARWAL & CO., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 As The Assessee Could Not Furnish/Produce The Confirmation Of Unsecured Loan From M/S Tirupati Investment. 3. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Be Set-A-Side & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored.

2 AY: 2014-15 4. The learned AO also observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of 34 lakhs from Tirupati Investment, for which the assessee had not furnished PAN or address or confirmation from the lender. Accordingly, the learned AO concluded that since the assessee had not proved the three necessary ingredients of section 68

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

2) was issued on 12.10.2004. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed accepting the returned income. 4. As per the Assessment Order, the assessee has offered income from services performed in India u/s 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the deemed profit of 10% and income on sale of the spares carried outside India @1% as the deemed

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

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

68 of the Act are not satisfied. Accordingly, he deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, in so far as the receipt of share premium is concerned, learned first appellate authority called upon the assessee to demonstrate as to how the share premium reflects the fair market value of the shares as per section 56(2)(viib

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

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

68 of the Act are not satisfied. Accordingly, he deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, in so far as the receipt of share premium is concerned, learned first appellate authority called upon the assessee to demonstrate as to how the share premium reflects the fair market value of the shares as per section 56(2)(viib

ITO, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UNISON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs Unison Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(5), C/O Virendra Kalra & Co., Cas, 13A, Subhash Road, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu7259C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.25/Ddn/2017 For Ay 2007-08 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun In Appeal No.584/Cit(A)/Ddn/2015-16 Dated 28.10.2016 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.03.2016 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Dehradun (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Dehradun Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Quashing The Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Rendering The Entire Proceedings As Void-Ab-Initio. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Made In The Hands Of The Company On Account Of Share Application Money Which Had Alrightly Been Assessed As Unaccounted Income Of The Assessee Company U/S 68 Of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Be Set-A-Side Being Erroneous In Law & On Facts & That Of Ao May Be Restored.”

2 4. The ld. AO observed that to the aforesaid three parties, shares were allotted at a premium of Rs.390 per share, which was considered to be abnormal. The copy of share allotment register and share transfer register were duly furnished by the assessee to the Ld. AO. From the perusal of the same, it revealed that shares allotted

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. since the Assessment Order is based on a time barred revised Return. . That the assessment, of income by the Ld AO is erroneous 3. since additions made to the returned income under Section 68 in respect of unsecured loans have not been obtained during the Financial Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appellant therefore, pray

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.”

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, but was only a provisional order. Hence, the assessee company had failed to fulfill this final condition as well

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

5. 417/Del/2018 ACIT Weatherford CIT(A)-2, Noida, 143(3)/144C Oil Tools ME A.Y. 2014-15 Appeal No. (3)(b) Ltd. 120/CIT(A)-2 /2016-17 Dated 25.10.2017 6. 5647/Del/2018 DCIT Weatherford CIT(A)-2, Noida, 143(3)/144C Oil Tools ME A.Y. 2015-16 Appeal No. 93/CIT(A)- (3)(b) Ltd. 2 /2017-18/Noida Dated 22.06.2018 2. Heard both

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

5. 417/Del/2018 ACIT Weatherford CIT(A)-2, Noida, 143(3)/144C Oil Tools ME A.Y. 2014-15 Appeal No. (3)(b) Ltd. 120/CIT(A)-2 /2016-17 Dated 25.10.2017 6. 5647/Del/2018 DCIT Weatherford CIT(A)-2, Noida, 143(3)/144C Oil Tools ME A.Y. 2015-16 Appeal No. 93/CIT(A)- (3)(b) Ltd. 2 /2017-18/Noida Dated 22.06.2018 2. Heard both

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M E LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

5. 417/Del/2018 ACIT Weatherford CIT(A)-2, Noida, 143(3)/144C Oil Tools ME A.Y. 2014-15 Appeal No. (3)(b) Ltd. 120/CIT(A)-2 /2016-17 Dated 25.10.2017 6. 5647/Del/2018 DCIT Weatherford CIT(A)-2, Noida, 143(3)/144C Oil Tools ME A.Y. 2015-16 Appeal No. 93/CIT(A)- (3)(b) Ltd. 2 /2017-18/Noida Dated 22.06.2018 2. Heard both