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)

section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and treating the gross receipts as Income without allowing revenue expenditures and depreciation on capital expenditures. 7

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

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

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

7: Disallowance of head office expenditure 7.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in applying the provisions of section 44C of the Act to payments made to BG International Limited. 7.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the head office expenditure was allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT in Appellant’s own case

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

7: Disallowance of head office expenditure 7.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts in applying the provisions of section 44C of the Act to payments made to BG International Limited. 7.2 The learned AO / DRP erred in not appreciating that the head office expenditure was allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT in Appellant’s own case

ITO, HARIDWAR vs. M/S. PRITY JAIN PROP., HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

depreciation into account. If such substantial expansion is completed, then, for the purpose of this section, the Assessment Year relevant to the P.Y. in which such substantial expansion is completed becomes the initial assessment year. Once it becomes the initial Assessment Year consequently under sub section (3) the assessee would be entitled to 100% deduction of profits and gains

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in denying the claim of depreciation and amortization of Rs. 49,75,184/-. 8. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing expense of Rs.11,660/- on the ground that they cannot

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

section 698 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order of Id. CIT(A) is held to be infirm and perverse and as such, the addition is deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Further, the Ld. Tribunal Bench in the case of Sharp Chucks & Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

7 of the DTAA and as per the said article all expenses incurred in earning income are fully deductible based on the commercial accounting principle in computing the said business profits chargeable to Indian Income-tax. The AO observed that Profit & Loss A/c of the Mumbai Project office as showing the gross income of Rs. 23,73,083/- against which

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

7 of the DTAA and as per the said article all expenses incurred in earning income are fully deductible based on the commercial accounting principle in computing the said business profits chargeable to Indian Income-tax. The AO observed that Profit & Loss A/c of the Mumbai Project office as showing the gross income of Rs. 23,73,083/- against which