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

natural justice 13.1. The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ground No. 14: Short credit for Tax deducted at source 14.1. The learned AO erred in not granting credit of tax deducted at source to the extent of Rs.2,37,656. Ground

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

natural justice 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts, in ignoring the submissions and the information furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. Ground No.15 : General 15.1 The Appellant submits that the AO, TPO and DRP have erred in arriving various unwarranted and erroneous conclusions unsupported by any relevant material in deciding the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to above and in law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not computing the income of Assessee u/s 44BB(1) of the Act. 4. In facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in computing the Income of the Assessee as per Section 44DA

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

natural justice. 4. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred in not adjudicating the grounds of objections in which all the additions on merits have been challenged. 5. That the AO has grossly erred in law and on facts in not following the directions of DRP in letter and spirit. 6. That the AO has grossly erred in making

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

natural justice. 19. That the CIT(A) has arbitrarily rejected the ground of ‘Non- opportunity’ as no reasonable opportunity was afforded by the AO while framing the Assessment and in the same way the CIT(A) has not afforded reasonable/sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order. 20. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

natural justice. 19. That the CIT(A) has arbitrarily rejected the ground of ‘Non- opportunity’ as no reasonable opportunity was afforded by the AO while framing the Assessment and in the same way the CIT(A) has not afforded reasonable/sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order. 20. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

natural justice. 19. That the CIT(A) has arbitrarily rejected the ground of ‘Non- opportunity’ as no reasonable opportunity was afforded by the AO while framing the Assessment and in the same way the CIT(A) has not afforded reasonable/sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order. 20. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

natural justice. 19. That the CIT(A) has arbitrarily rejected the ground of ‘Non- opportunity’ as no reasonable opportunity was afforded by the AO while framing the Assessment and in the same way the CIT(A) has not afforded reasonable/sufficient opportunity before passing the impugned order. 20. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

Natural Justice. 2. The assessee is a society and granted registration u/s. 12AA of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was also holding exemption certificate u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.03.2016 wherein, the CPC found some defects and issued notice u/s. 139(9). In response, the assessee claimed to have

M/S. RASAYANA HOTEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) Was Partly

depreciation was not warranted. The Ld. CIT (A), however, upheld the disallowance of assessee’s claim u/s 80IC of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the assessment disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IC without there being any incriminating material having been found during the course of search

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.”

nature of the Reconstruction Reserve that it had created. The assessee had claimed the benefit of demerger scenario in its case under clause (ii) of section 2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but the Assessing Officer had held that the criteria of demerger was not being fulfilled by the assessee company. The assessee company had taken over the assets

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

nature of liability i.e. reconstruction reserve. 3. Hence, the then AO had concluded that the assessee had only taken over the assets for which the liabilities were not ascertained till date. This implied that on date the assessee had the assets without the corresponding liability, i.e. in fact, the assets have been taken over by UJVNL from UPJVNL free

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

nature of liability i.e. reconstruction reserve. 3. Hence, the then AO had concluded that the assessee had only taken over the assets for which the liabilities were not ascertained till date. This implied that on date the assessee had the assets without the corresponding liability, i.e. in fact, the assets have been taken over by UJVNL from UPJVNL free

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

nature of liability i.e. reconstruction reserve. 3. Hence, the then AO had concluded that the assessee had only taken over the assets for which the liabilities were not ascertained till date. This implied that on date the assessee had the assets without the corresponding liability, i.e. in fact, the assets have been taken over by UJVNL from UPJVNL free

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

nature of liability i.e. reconstruction reserve. 3. Hence, the then AO had concluded that the assessee had only taken over the assets for which the liabilities were not ascertained till date. This implied that on date the assessee had the assets without the corresponding liability, i.e. in fact, the assets have been taken over by UJVNL from UPJVNL free

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

nature of liability i.e. reconstruction reserve. 3. Hence, the then AO had concluded that the assessee had only taken over the assets for which the liabilities were not ascertained till date. This implied that on date the assessee had the assets without the corresponding liability, i.e. in fact, the assets have been taken over by UJVNL from UPJVNL free

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

nature of liability i.e. reconstruction reserve. 3. Hence, the then AO had concluded that the assessee had only taken over the assets for which the liabilities were not ascertained till date. This implied that on date the assessee had the assets without the corresponding liability, i.e. in fact, the assets have been taken over by UJVNL from UPJVNL free

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation on total amount of Rs. 24,34,70,741/-. It was further observed that cost of revenues were shown under the following three sub-heads for an aggregate sum of Rs. 23,91,08,293/-: (i) Hook up and commissioning Rs. 89,04,947/- (ii) Insurance Rs. 22,66,85,140/- (iii) Pre-engineering and survey