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

Section 44DA, the revenue has to prove that the receipts are indeed or in the nature of FTS taxable u/s 9(1)(vi i). 22. With regard to the reimbursement of “equipment lost in hole” amounting to Rs.11,01,66,066/- as includible in the gross receipts as opposed to the claim of the assessee that the same being

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

Section 44DA, the revenue has to prove that the receipts are indeed or in the nature of FTS taxable u/s 9(1)(vi i). 22. With regard to the reimbursement of “equipment lost in hole” amounting to Rs.11,01,66,066/- as includible in the gross receipts as opposed to the claim of the assessee that the same being

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

Section 44DA, the revenue has to prove that the receipts are indeed or in the nature of FTS taxable u/s 9(1)(vi i). 22. With regard to the reimbursement of “equipment lost in hole” amounting to Rs.11,01,66,066/- as includible in the gross receipts as opposed to the claim of the assessee that the same being

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

Section 44DA, the revenue has to prove that the receipts are indeed or in the nature of FTS taxable u/s 9(1)(vi i). 22. With regard to the reimbursement of “equipment lost in hole” amounting to Rs.11,01,66,066/- as includible in the gross receipts as opposed to the claim of the assessee that the same being

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

section 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 the Assessing Officer adopted the valuation report of Govt. valuer dated 16.12.2016 wherein the property was valued at Rs.3,39,57,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains on sale of land. The Assessing Officer adopted 1/6th share of the assessee, namely Late Krishan Kant Chahal and computed the long

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

4 AY: 2013-14 Copy of the assessment order and the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2011 are placed on record. Thereby it is clear and accepted that immovable properties purchased were not stock in trade. 2011-12 2012-13 54,52,150 Gain on Sale of immovable properties was shown as Income from Capital Gain in the return of income

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

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

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

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with

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

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing an order under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and holding first appellate proceedings not in a faceless manner.” 5. The ld. AR made following three propositions for the deletion of disallowance of Rs.17,51,9112/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act supported with

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 dated 30.10.2018 passed u/s 147/143(3) is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned PCIT

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

4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by holding that the appellant should be deemed as assessee in default under section 201 of Income Tax Act even in the absence of any proceedings being

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

Capital gains v. Income from other sources. 7.1. Now, let us examine Section 11 and Section 40 to decide this controversy. Section 11 to 13 is a part of Chapter 3 under the heading "Income which does not form the part of the total income". Section 11 (1) provides that "subject to the provisions of Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

4 of 14 ITA Nos.2336 & 117/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 since the cheques were not presented in the Bank by Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra, it was returned to the assessee. These facts were presented before the learned AO by the assessee in the search proceedings under section 153C of the Act. The learned AO, however, did not agree

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

4 of 14 ITA Nos.2336 & 117/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 since the cheques were not presented in the Bank by Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra, it was returned to the assessee. These facts were presented before the learned AO by the assessee in the search proceedings under section 153C of the Act. The learned AO, however, did not agree