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

II has also accepted above argument i.e. the provision of section 44BB(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 is applicable and not 44DA (copy of order is attached). Therefore we submit that the assessment should be completed u/s 44BB.” 19. The assessee furnished the bill wise income from two contracts as under:- 20. The assessee also furnished the entire invoices raised

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act (''the Act''). 2. In law and on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in not affording a proper opportunity to the Assessee of being heard. The Assessment order passed is against the principle of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice to above and in law and in facts and circumstances

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

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.”

3-2001 was Rs. 998.92 crores, out of which 682.05 crores was received out of demerger of UPJVNL vide notification letter dated 5- 11-2001. Correspondingly, the depreciation up to that date had also been accounted for in UJVNL accounts and the depreciation on the written down value as on 9-11-2001 was considered by UJVNL. It was further

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

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

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues for both the appeals are similar in nature. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 13/DDN/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16: “The Appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues for both the appeals are similar in nature. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 13/DDN/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16: “The Appellant objects to the order dated 18 February 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

143(3) r.w. section144C(13) by the AO for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee (BGEPIL) is a non-resident company incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability and is engaged in the business of exploration & extraction of mineral oils consequent upon Production Sharing Contracts (PSC) signed with