KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\nSd/-\n(MANISH AGARWAL)\nACCOUNΤΑΝΤ ΜΕMBER\nDate: 28

capital tools M.E. Ltd.\nunder the head \"Salaries\".\nThe assessee does not get the benefit of exclusionary clause 2 of sec.\n9(1)(vii) since this activity executing annual maintenance contract and\nconsultancy is not a mining activity and is purely technical service.\nSimilarly, these nature of activities are not covered under provisions of\nsec. 44BB and royalty in nature

LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

143(1) of the Act. iii. For the purpose of arriving at the capital gains in respect of sale of property in assessment year 2012-13, we find that the assessee had indeed considered the sale price as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority in terms of section

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

143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act dated 14.01.2019 wherein the same services were ITA No. 6126/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5223/Del/2018 (Assessee) ITA No. 6173/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5305/Del/2018 (Revenue) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd accepted by the ld. AO to be taxable u/s 44BB of the Act by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

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

143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act dated 14.01.2019 wherein the same services were ITA No. 6126/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5223/Del/2018 (Assessee) ITA No. 6173/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5305/Del/2018 (Revenue) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd accepted by the ld. AO to be taxable u/s 44BB of the Act by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

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

143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act dated 14.01.2019 wherein the same services were ITA No. 6126/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5223/Del/2018 (Assessee) ITA No. 6173/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5305/Del/2018 (Revenue) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd accepted by the ld. AO to be taxable u/s 44BB of the Act by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

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

143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act dated 14.01.2019 wherein the same services were ITA No. 6126/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5223/Del/2018 (Assessee) ITA No. 6173/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5305/Del/2018 (Revenue) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd accepted by the ld. AO to be taxable u/s 44BB of the Act by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year 2013-14: Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017 3. Learned counsel submits

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year 2013-14: Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017 3. Learned counsel submits

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year 2013-14: Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017 3. Learned counsel submits

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

143(1) of the Act dated 17.06.2019 as no order u/s 201(1) of the Act was passed by the AO in his case by treating his as an assessee in default for the non-deduction of TDS in regard to interest paid to NBFCs. The ld. AR submitted referring to the second proviso to section

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

143(1) of the Act dated 26.08.2019 as no order u/s 201(1) of the Act was passed by the AO in her case by treating her as an assessee in default for the non-deduction of TDS in regard to interest paid to NBFC. The ld. AR submitted referring to the second proviso to section

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

143(1) of the Act dated 26.08.2019 as no order u/s 201(1) of the Act was passed by the AO in her case by treating her as an assessee in default for the non-deduction of TDS in regard to interest paid to NBFC. The ld. AR submitted referring to the second proviso to section

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

gains, the land was deemed agricultural, not a capital asset, and thus not taxable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3)/147 dated 21-03-2016 was not maintainable and an invalid re-assessment cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other