Uttarakhand High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that service tax reimbursed to the assessee by the service recipient is not an amount paid for services rendered in connection with mineral oil prospecting or extraction. Therefore, it should not be included in the computation of presumptive taxable income under Section 44BB.

The High Court held that service tax reimbursed to the assessee by the service recipient is not an amount paid for services rendered in connection with mineral oil prospecting or extraction. Therefore, it should not be included in the computation of presumptive taxable income under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal held that the sale price of sand and concrete should be fixed at Rs. 10.40 per quintal, considering the respondent was a patta holder and the quality of their product was inferior to that of the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. The court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

The High Court held that service tax reimbursed to the assessee by the service recipient is not an amount paid for services rendered in connection with mineral oil prospecting or extraction. Therefore, it should not be included in the computation of presumptive taxable income under Section 44BB.

The High Court held that the Development Authority is a separate legal entity and not the State itself, thus not covered by Article 289 of the Constitution. The court found that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, are similar to those considered by the Supreme Court in a prior case, and the doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title does not apply.