G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

11. With reference to the reopening, the provisions Section 147 are as under: “Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable

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

depreciation to the Appellant under section 32 of the Act in accordance with law.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is a legal issue and does not require verification of any facts. Hence, it is admitted

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

11 of the Act without appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is yet to be decided by the competent authority. 6. That without prejudice to the above the ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining

ITO, HARIDWAR vs. M/S. PRITY JAIN PROP., HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

depreciation into account. If such substantial expansion is completed, then, for the purpose of this section, the Assessment Year relevant to the P.Y. in which such substantial expansion is completed becomes the initial assessment year. Once it becomes the initial Assessment Year consequently under sub section (3) the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction of profits and gains

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

section 44C with respect to returned income and not income assessed. Ground No. 8: Disallowance of depreciation 8.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs. 1,24,84,806 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

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:-

11 is obvious from the perusal Of fee records and the facts which are undisputed that there is a mistake apparent from record it is occurring in the first year of business F.Y. 2006-07 relevant to A.Y. 2007-08. However, after considering the facts carefully and going through the depreciation for the current year and the first year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 44DA of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the cost of materials of Rs. 493,200/- on the ground that the expense could not be verified. 6. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

11. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The AO alleged that assessee made purchases of INR 53,94,983/- from one party namely, M/s. Tripura Enterprises and not deducted tax at source @ 0.1% as per section 194Q of the Act. It was the claim of the assessee that

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

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

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

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

11. That the CIT(A) has enhanced the income of the assessee without examining the books of accounts and assessment records of the assessee as confirmed by AO. Hence, the enhancement is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized

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

11. That the CIT(A) has enhanced the income of the assessee without examining the books of accounts and assessment records of the assessee as confirmed by AO. Hence, the enhancement is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized

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

11. That the CIT(A) has enhanced the income of the assessee without examining the books of accounts and assessment records of the assessee as confirmed by AO. Hence, the enhancement is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized

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

11. That the CIT(A) has enhanced the income of the assessee without examining the books of accounts and assessment records of the assessee as confirmed by AO. Hence, the enhancement is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 12. That without prejudice, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Assessee had surrendered the amount in respect of seized