SUNIL SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him From Time To Time

capital gain of Rs 12,61,857/-, which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee also furnished the ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the books of M/s Sushil Financial Services P Ltd, Mumbai for trading of shares and commodities, which was accepted by the ld. AO. 4. Further as per Form

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,50,95,314/-. While doing so, assessee had claimed a deduction under section 54EC of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- and under section 54B of a sum of Rs. 79,97,240/- (in dispute), (kindly see page 2 of AO order and page 7 of PB for Income Tax Return

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

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

33,150/-. 13. Thus, the AO / National Faceless Assessment Centre (“NFAC”) while issuing the final assessment order, has completely erred in law by issuing the assessment order in the name of the non-existent partnership firm. 14. The other facts pertaining to intimation of the conversion of the assessee from partnership firm to private limited company to the revenue

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

33,150/-. 13. Thus, the AO / National Faceless Assessment Centre (“NFAC”) while issuing the final assessment order, has completely erred in law by issuing the assessment order in the name of the non-existent partnership firm. 14. The other facts pertaining to intimation of the conversion of the assessee from partnership firm to private limited company to the revenue

RAO FARMOOD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act on the date of Sale and therefore, the gain from the sale of the same was not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 54,51,665/- on this account is hereby deleted. Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 5 are allowed. ” which has not been

RAO FARMOOD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act on the date of Sale and therefore, the gain from the sale of the same was not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 54,51,665/- on this account is hereby deleted. Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 5 are allowed. ” which has not been

NIRMAL SINGH,KASHIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

capital gains arising therefrom amounting to Rs.52,14,139/- as well. The necessary prima facie inference which would arise in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits; although not reconciled or verified to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities, represent the on-money component in the foregoing sale deed involving total consideration of Rs.66,33

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Capital & Financial\nServices Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 119 ITD 266 (Delhi) have held that there\nwas uncertainty regarding ultimate collection of interest hence\nassessee was justified in not showing the notional interest income\nwhich did not actually materialized during the year under consideration.\nDelhi High Court in CIT v. Metropolitan Financier (P.) Ltd. [1981] 5\nTaxman 216 (Delhi) have held

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

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

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

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

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

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

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

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

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

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

33. 2008 Expert advice on the device to clean insides of a pipeline. 34. 2795 Feasibility study of rig to assess its remaining useful life and to carry out structural alterations. 35. 925 Engineering analysis of rig. 36. 1519 Imparting training on cased hold production log evaluation and analysis. 37. 1533 Training on well control. 38. 1518 Training on implementation

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

33. 2008 Expert advice on the device to clean insides of a pipeline. 34. 2795 Feasibility study of rig to assess its remaining useful life and to carry out structural alterations. 35. 925 Engineering analysis of rig. 36. 1519 Imparting training on cased hold production log evaluation and analysis. 37. 1533 Training on well control. 38. 1518 Training on implementation

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

33. 2008 Expert advice on the device to clean insides of a pipeline. 34. 2795 Feasibility study of rig to assess its remaining useful life and to carry out structural alterations. 35. 925 Engineering analysis of rig. 36. 1519 Imparting training on cased hold production log evaluation and analysis. 37. 1533 Training on well control. 38. 1518 Training on implementation

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

33. 2008 Expert advice on the device to clean insides of a pipeline. 34. 2795 Feasibility study of rig to assess its remaining useful life and to carry out structural alterations. 35. 925 Engineering analysis of rig. 36. 1519 Imparting training on cased hold production log evaluation and analysis. 37. 1533 Training on well control. 38. 1518 Training on implementation