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

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

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Rajesh Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, B-4, New Sabzi Mandi, Vikash Central Circle, Nagar, Distti. Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpa7592E Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

54,530/- was found from the assessee. The assessee was able to explain the said cash from his withdrawals only to the tune of Rs. 4,12,000/-. The remaining sum of Rs. 23,42,530/- remain unexplained cash. When this was confronted to the assessee, the assessee explained in his sworn statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. MAHALAXMI BUILDWELL, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mahalaxmi Buildwell, Ward-1(1)(2), 118, Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Aazfm1835G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mayank Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits to the tune of Rs.3.16 crores; reading as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished the written submission and the following documents: 1. Bank Account Statement 2. Copy of sale deed of the property purchased 3. Balance Sheet of the firm as on 31.03.2015 4. Confirmation Statement

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

54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been possibly harboured. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that absent incriminating material, the AO would not be justified in seeking to assess or reassess completed assessments. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context

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

54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been possibly harboured. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that absent incriminating material, the AO would not be justified in seeking to assess or reassess completed assessments. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context

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

54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been possibly harboured. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that absent incriminating material, the AO would not be justified in seeking to assess or reassess completed assessments. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context

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

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

54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been possibly harboured. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that absent incriminating material, the AO would not be justified in seeking to assess or reassess completed assessments. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context

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

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

54. In any case, Abhisar Buildwell, in our considered opinion, is a decision which conclusively lays to rest any doubt that could have been possibly harboured. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that absent incriminating material, the AO would not be justified in seeking to assess or reassess completed assessments. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context

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

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account

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

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

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

54. Ground number 3 – 5 of the appeal of the assessee are with respect to taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. The parties submitted that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07. They also submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting to Rs 10,84,47,712/-. 4.5. The ld. AO held that the service tax receipts mentioned in a) above should be included as part of gross contractual receipts taxable u/s 44BB of the Act. As far as amount received towards Lost in Hole, the ld. AO by following the decision

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting to Rs 10,84,47,712/-. 4.5. The ld. AO held that the service tax receipts mentioned in a) above should be included as part of gross contractual receipts taxable u/s 44BB of the Act. As far as amount received towards Lost in Hole, the ld. AO by following the decision