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

depreciation on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed’' 38. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019

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

depreciation on these assets. In view of this ground No. 5 of the appeal of the Assessee is allowed’' 38. The Tribunal in appellant's own case for the assessment years 2011-12 (ITA No. 1478/Del/2017), 2012- 13 (ITA No. 6791/Del./2017), 2013-14 (ITA No. 7476/Del/2018) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 7477/Del/2018), 2016- 17 (ITA No.7/DDN/2019

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

2,65,85,446, the appellant submits that the aforesaid difference is on account of the fact that the appellant had capitalised certain costs as part of the cost of the fixed assets and appellant had claimed depreciation thereon. However, the tax auditor in the Tax Audit Report considered this asrevenue in nature.In this regard, the appellant submits that even

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

2 of final assessment order wherein the details of various expenses incurred by Branch Office and various project office has been tabulated . 32 . The ld . CIT DR opposed for the same. However, could not controvert the above reproduced observation by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years . 33 . We have heard the rival submissions and perused