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

38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

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

38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

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

38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

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

38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

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

38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

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

38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with the closing WDV for A.Y.2003-04. Hence for the purpose of coming to the amount

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

depreciation and depletion on capitalised portion is subsequently disallowed, the amount capitalised by the appellant should be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year. 53. The ld. CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld. AO/TPO. 54. After hearing both the sides and considering

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

depreciation on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed’' 38. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019

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

depreciation on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed’' 38. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019

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

10 of Guidance Note on Tax Audit under section 44AB of the Act issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India wherein it has been mentioned that view taken by tax auditor is not binding on the appellant . The relevant paragraph has been reproduced as under: It will be appreciated that even Guidance Note on Tax Audit recognizes that

METRO FROZEN FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Metro Frozen Fruits & Dcit, Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. Circle Haridwar, Plot No.22, Rajpur, Vs Uttarakhan Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, Uttrakhand Pan-Aaecm4521F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Piyush Kuchhal, Fca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am, This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

10% 1,25,57,597/- 18,75,357/- 1,39,468/- 0 14,50,269/- 1,31,22,153/- Equipments Others 34,74,877/- 30,47,272/- 4,27,605/- 4,27,605/- 0 0 0 Total 3,40,94,290/- 37,38

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

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

depreciation on 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

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

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

depreciation on 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

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

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

depreciation on 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