DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

vi) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in overlooking that the receipts of the assessee were not only in the nature of FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act, but were also not eligible to be excluded under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) since the “recipient” of FTS, the assessee in this case had not undertaken

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)

depreciation on capital expenditures. 7. Without prejudice to the above the ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- and Tax liability including interest and additional Income Tax at Rs. 1,61,64,410/- made by AO at CPC through automated process u/s 143(1) of the Income

ADARSH BAL NIKETAN ,ROORKEE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2015-16

9) of the Act and processed the original return of income u/s. 143(1) and thereby made an adjustment to the tune of Rs.3,46,69,080/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s. 11 and 12 as well as section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Aggrieved by the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return