YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act The High Court, therefore, granted further stay in the recovery proceedings initiated by the tax department, from UEPPCB for a period of two weeks from the date of its decision, within which period, UEPPCB was required to file the statutory appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 10) It is further submitted that

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

Section 10(46) of the Income Tax Act The High Court, therefore, granted further stay in the recovery proceedings initiated by the tax department, from UEPPCB for a period of two weeks from the date of its decision, within which period, UEPPCB was required to file the statutory appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 10) It is further submitted that

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS 2015-16\n5000000.00\n(AS PER ANNEXURE C)\nADVANCE SHOPS UNITS\n12961.00\n(AS PER ANNEXURE D)\nADVANCE TAX\n50000.00\nMUKTA ARTS\n400000.00\nSECURITY DEPOSITS\n5756742.00 SERVICE TAX RECEIVABLE (13-14)\n66595.00\n\nADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS\n3015877.15\nPROVISIONS\nTDS PAYABLE\n120943.00 (AS PER ANNEXURE 'F')-\nSERVICE TAX PAYABLE\n371622.00-\nAUDIT FEES PAYABLE\n34500.00\nVAT PAYABLE\n111000.00\n120379378.15\n120379378.15\nDuring

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

10,250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

34,954/-. If the presumptive income @10% is applied as per section 44BB(1) of the MB Petroleum Services LLC Act, then the income of the assessee would be Rs. 76,73,495/- . Whereas, the ld AO in the instant case has determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,72,23,425/- which is more than even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. HOTEL SURBHI PALACE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 21/04/2021 by assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 11,17,16,165/- by disallowing a sum of Rs. 41,77,095/- u/s 35D of the Act, Rs. 34,070/- on account of interest on delayed payment of service tax and TDS and Rs. 10

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

34,733/- made by the AO is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised are allowed in favor of the appellant.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the GIT (A) has erred in law by not considering

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Schlumberger Asia Services Deputy Director Of Income Tax Limited, (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building Dehradun No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan-Aadcs1107J Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Deputy Director Of Income Tax Schlumberger Asia Services (International Taxation), Limited, Dehradun 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan- Aadcs1107J Revenue Assessee Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kappor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr.Dr

TDS has not been given. The Id. AO must do so at the time of giving effect to this order. 10. Ground no. 9 challenges the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. This ground is allowed following the case of Maersk reported in 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. Ground nos. 10 and 11 challenge the initiation of penalty

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

10 per cent of the cost. In the absence of any basis for valuing the obsolete items at 50 per cent of the cost, the Tribunal could not have upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer .” 40 . Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. – 240 ITR 256 (De l.) held that

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

34 of 2006 and 743 of 2007 and reject the Revenue's appeals viz, Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1460 to 1464 of 2005 and set aside the order of the Tribunal as far as its consideration on art. 22 of DTAA is concerned. No costs.” 8.2 In ACIT vs. M/s. Chadha Power (ITA No. 3055/Del/2018), the Co-ordinate Bench

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

34 of 2006 and 743 of 2007 and reject the Revenue's appeals viz, Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1460 to 1464 of 2005 and set aside the order of the Tribunal as far as its consideration on art. 22 of DTAA is concerned. No costs.” 8.2 In ACIT vs. M/s. Chadha Power (ITA No. 3055/Del/2018), the Co-ordinate Bench

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

34 of 2006 and 743 of 2007 and reject the Revenue's appeals viz, Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1460 to 1464 of 2005 and set aside the order of the Tribunal as far as its consideration on art. 22 of DTAA is concerned. No costs.” 8.2 In ACIT vs. M/s. Chadha Power (ITA No. 3055/Del/2018), the Co-ordinate Bench