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

50. ITA number 3072/Del/2012 is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income

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

50. ITA number 3072/Del/2012 is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income

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

50. ITA number 3072/Del/2012 is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income

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

50. ITA number 3072/Del/2012 is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income

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

50. ITA number 3072/Del/2012 is filed by assessee against the order passed by the Assistant Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act 1961 dated 13/4/2012 wherein the total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 1,194,359,160/– against the returned income

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

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

2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings, for 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 21 to 23/DDN/2019 C.O. Nos. 20 & 21/DDN/2019 whatever may be the reason, the assessee did not furnish the requisite details regarding share application

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

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

2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings, for 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 21 to 23/DDN/2019 C.O. Nos. 20 & 21/DDN/2019 whatever may be the reason, the assessee did not furnish the requisite details regarding share application

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. That the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer and order passed by CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The addition/ disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. That the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer and order passed by CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The addition/ disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, and highly excessive and are not based

MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,DEHRADUN vs. DY.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: the date of agreement. In his reply AR of the assessee submitted that only Rs.14,00,415/- was received during the year and the assessee has inadvertently forgot to include this amount in its income. So, this may be considered as income from transfer of the above property. He furnished receipt of the above amount which is place on record. MDDA

2,50,01,500/- was shown/entered as receipt by the assessee in the year 1991. It was contended that the above-mentioned documents clearly demonstrated that the appellant assessee had received the major sale consideration prior to the free-hold of the said property and thus, the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act did not get attracted

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2 Reena Verma 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that section 40A (3) of the Act is wholly in applicable to the facts of the appellant since payments were covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and as such disallowance sustained is contrary to law and facts and hence untenable

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. These appeals of the Revenue for the Assessment Years (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2012-13 and 2013-14 are directed against orders dated 24.11.2016 and 30.11.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. 3. Vide 8 grounds of appeal; the Revenue has raised following issues: (i) Computing income by taking loss at (-) Rs.96,68

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. These appeals of the Revenue for the Assessment Years (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2012-13 and 2013-14 are directed against orders dated 24.11.2016 and 30.11.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. 3. Vide 8 grounds of appeal; the Revenue has raised following issues: (i) Computing income by taking loss at (-) Rs.96,68

AJAY KUMAR MAMGAIN,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of Rs 11 lakhs. 2. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 31-3- 2016 declaring an income of ₹ 3 74340/–. Action under section 147 of the income tax act was initiated and the notice under section 148 was issued on 24/3/2017. In response to that

ACHARYA BALKRISHNA,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

68 as unexplained cash credits and Rs. 1,25,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C for obtaining such loan were made in the hands of the assessee. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely

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

50. What we seek to emphasise is that merely because Section 153C confers jurisdiction upon the AO to commence an exercise of assessment or reassessment for the block of years which are mentioned in that provision, the same alone would not be sufficient to justify steps in that direction being taken, unless the incriminating material so found is likely