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

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

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

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2)(1),\nVs. Subhash Road, Dehradun.\n(Appellant)\nAssessee by\nDr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &\nSh. Somil Agarwal, Adv.\nDepartment by\nShri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n11/09/2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n27/11/2025\nORDER\nPER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:\nBoth the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as assessee against the order\nof Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2)(1),\nSubhash Road, Dehradun.\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nDr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &\nSh. Somil Agarwal, Adv.\nDepartment by\nShri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n11/09/2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n27/11/2025\nORDER\nPER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:\nBoth the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as assessee against the order\nof Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

2 clearly reveals that the assessee vide its letter dated 26.10.2023 has categorically surrendered the excess stock as business income. Hence, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that the said difference in inventory is related to the normal working of the business of the assessee. On the above issue, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

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