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

02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the activities carried out by the assessee

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

02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the activities carried out by the assessee

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

02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the activities carried out by the assessee

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

02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying the provisions of section 44BB(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the activities carried out by the assessee

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

02,16,110 (as against returned loss of Rs. 89,73,23,135/-). While doing so, the learned AO held as under: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) 1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

02,16,110 (as against returned loss of Rs. 89,73,23,135/-). While doing so, the learned AO held as under: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) 1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That the contract under consideration was a composite contract; and 3) That the entire contract revenues (both inside India