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

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

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

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

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

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

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

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

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

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

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

29,95,08,702/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs 38,89,94,500/-. In this regard, vide order dated 28th March 2013, it has been held by the AO as under: “During the year under consideration it is noticed that the opening WDV for the assets for A.Y. 2004-05 do not tally with

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 u/s 32 of the Act also would become academic. In our considered opinion, even though the assessee has offered more income in its return than the income u/s 44BB(1) of the Act , still it is not estopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment though such mistake is on account of submission by the taxpayer

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

29 October 2021 [bearing DIN no. ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2021-22/1036840292(1)] issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other grounds. Ground No. 1 : Reassessment proceedings are without Jurisdiction and bad in law 1.1 The learned AO erred in law and on facts as reasons recorded

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

29 October 2021 [bearing DIN no. ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2021-22/1036840292(1)] issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on the following among other grounds. Ground No. 1 : Reassessment proceedings are without Jurisdiction and bad in law 1.1 The learned AO erred in law and on facts as reasons recorded

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

depreciation and depletion on capitalised portion is subsequently disallowed, the amount capitalised by the appellant should be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year. 53. The ld. CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld. AO/TPO. 54. After hearing both the sides and considering

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

depreciation and depletion on capitalised portion is subsequently disallowed, the amount capitalised by the appellant should be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in the relevant assessment year . 53 . The ld . CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld . AO/TPO. 54 . After hearing both the sides and considering

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),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

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

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

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged

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

depreciation on building. The addition is illegal, bad in law and arbitrary without considering the explanations/ evidences available on record and based upon mere surmises and conjectures. 25. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the AO and the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions cannot be made on the basis of alleged