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

143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee.” 22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act MB Petroleum Services LLC or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication

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.”

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 and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company incorporated on 12th February, 2001 by Government

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143 and determine the sum payable by, or refundable to, the assessee.” 22. In view of non obstante clause of section 44BB(1) of the Act, all other disallowances made by the ld AO either u/s 37(1) of the Act 9 ITA No.6608/Del./2016 or section 40(a)(i) of the Act would not survive. Similarly, the adjudication

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, cannot be enhanced. 16. That without prejudice even when enhancing the income, the learned CIT(A) has neither stated even the source of income or head of the income, which is stated to have been enhanced. Hence, the enhancement is illegal and bad in law. 17. That the order

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:-

Section 143(3) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law rejecting the contention of the assessee that approval having been granted in a mechanical manner is bad in law, hence the consequential proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are illegal and liable

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(3)/144C of the Act, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,76,02,16,110 (as against returned loss of Rs. 89,73,23,135/-). While doing so, the learned AO held as under: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) 1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(3)/144C of the Act, assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,76,02,16,110 (as against returned loss of Rs. 89,73,23,135/-). While doing so, the learned AO held as under: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Int. tax.) 1) That the assessee had a PE in India; 2) That

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)

143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and treating the gross receipts as Income without allowing revenue expenditures and depreciation

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

143(3) read with section 144C(13)of the Income-tax Act (“the Act” for short) in pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 28.02.2020 passed u/s. 144C(5)of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No. 1: Erroneous disallowance of payment made towards intra-group services by Appellant

M/S UJVN LIMITED ,UTTARAKHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTARAKHAND

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation claimed by the assessee. 5. As the facts in present case are identical to the facts existed in other years as has been admitted by the Revenue also and Ld. CIT(A) also followed the order of the Tribunal of preceding years, therefore, by respectfully following the said order, we hold that the assessee is eligible for deprecation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SUBHASH ROAD vs. UJVN LIMITED, GMS ROAD

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

depreciation claimed by the assessee. 5. As the facts in present case are identical to the facts existed in other years as has been admitted by the Revenue also and Ld. CIT(A) also followed the order of the Tribunal of preceding years, therefore, by respectfully following the said order, we hold that the assessee is eligible for deprecation

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on 22nd December 2006 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs 40,67,51,498/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. first appellate authority, vide order dated 30th December 2008, allowed part relief. Assessee filed a further appeal before this

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on 22nd December 2006 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs 40,67,51,498/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. first appellate authority, vide order dated 30th December 2008, allowed part relief. Assessee filed a further appeal before this

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on 22nd December 2006 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs 40,67,51,498/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. first appellate authority, vide order dated 30th December 2008, allowed part relief. Assessee filed a further appeal before this

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on 22nd December 2006 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs 40,67,51,498/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. first appellate authority, vide order dated 30th December 2008, allowed part relief. Assessee filed a further appeal before this

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on 22nd December 2006 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs 40,67,51,498/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. first appellate authority, vide order dated 30th December 2008, allowed part relief. Assessee filed a further appeal before this