ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business

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 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

business of the Assessee, therefore entitles Assessee to claim the depreciation on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.” 50. As regards difference in depreciation of other assets of Rs. 2,65,85,446, the appellant submits that the aforesaid difference is on account of the fact that the appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

business profits chargeable to Indian Income-tax. The AO observed that Profit & Loss A/c of the Mumbai Project office as showing the gross income of Rs. 23,73,083/- against which the assessee had claimed the expenses of Rs. 24,34,70,741/-. The contract revenue of Rs. 23,73,45,563/- was 14.56% of the total revenue

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

business profits chargeable to Indian Income-tax. The AO observed that Profit & Loss A/c of the Mumbai Project office as showing the gross income of Rs. 23,73,083/- against which the assessee had claimed the expenses of Rs. 24,34,70,741/-. The contract revenue of Rs. 23,73,45,563/- was 14.56% of the total revenue

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business or profession" : Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in a case where the provisions of section 42 or section 44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

income assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.76,33,296 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 8.2 The learned AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that out of the above the difference of Rs.13

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

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

income assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.76,33,296 being the difference of depreciation amount between the tax audit report and the computation. 8.2 The learned AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that out of the above the difference of Rs.13

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukladr. B.R.R. Kumar

Income Tax Act. The AO has disallowed depreciation on the ground that the assessee had received assets free of cost from the Government of Uttaranchal. The action of the AO in disallowing depreciation is not as per law. As per settled accounting principles, every rupee invested in the business

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

business or profession" : Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in a case where the provisions of section 42 or section 44D or section 44DA or section 115A or section 293A apply for the purposes of computing profits or gains or any other income referred to in those sections. (2) The amounts referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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

business of the Assessee, therefore entitles Assessee to claim the depreciation on these assets . In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed .” 50 . As regards di fference in depreciation of other assets o f Rs.2 ,65 ,85 ,446 , the appellant submits that the aforesaid difference is on account of the fact that

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 and DBIT Group of cases. Consequently, notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 05.03.2013 and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee furnished return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,37,640/-. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 and DBIT Group of cases. Consequently, notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 05.03.2013 and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee furnished return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,37,640/-. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny

SANJAY BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 and DBIT Group of cases. Consequently, notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 05.03.2013 and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee furnished return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,37,640/-. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 and DBIT Group of cases. Consequently, notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 05.03.2013 and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee furnished return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,37,640/-. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(4), RUDRAPUR, RUDRAPUR vs. SWARNIM PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer-2(1)(4), Swarnim Promotoers & Rudrapur. Developers, Vs. Mandi Parisar Kichha Road, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. Pan: Abqfs9375M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Goel, Ca & Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Cit(A) In Short) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 06.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was E-Filed On 17.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,89,400/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny & The Assessing Officer Has Computed The Total Income At Rs.1,27,38,630/- Vide Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 02.06.2011 By Making The Following Additions/Disallowances:

business of Real Estate. The return of income was e-filed on 17.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,89,400/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and the Assessing Officer has computed the total income at Rs.1,27,38,630/- vide order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 02.06.2011 by making