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

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

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

section 80IC of the I.T. Act 1961 and produced all the relevant documents in support of its claim. 4. That Ld. Authorities below are not justified in disallowing the claim of deprecation f Rs. 3,82,226/- on the fixed assets purchased during the year and also on fixed assets purchased in previous years and confirming the same and ignoring

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

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

143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year 2013-14: Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017 3. Learned counsel submits

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

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

143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year 2013-14: Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017 3. Learned counsel submits

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

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

143(3)/144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), appeal-wise; respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. We proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment Year 2013-14: Assessee’s appeal ITA No. 6026/Del/2017 and Cross appeal ITA No. 6171/Del/2017 3. Learned counsel submits

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)

3. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer (AO) at CPC u/s 143(1)(ii) through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded before making adjustment u/s 143