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

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

section 44BB of the Act, when the said provisions are a complete code of taxation in themselves and do not distinguish between revenue and capital receipts having made allowance for expenditure including depreciation on capital assets to the extent of 90

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

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

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

90,94,116/- on account of employees'\ncontribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va), is bad in law and against the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and the same is outside the purview of section 143(1) of the\nAct.\n4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

90,94,116/- on account of employees'\ncontribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va), is bad in law and against the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and the same is outside the purview of section 143(1) of the\nAct.\n4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

90,634/- being the expenses holding that since the said expenses had been incurred for prospecting new business opportunities, therefore, the same were to be treated as pre-operative in nature and not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that since the branch office would not earn any income in future, therefore, no expenditure would

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

90,634/- being the expenses holding that since the said expenses had been incurred for prospecting new business opportunities, therefore, the same were to be treated as pre-operative in nature and not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO held that since the branch office would not earn any income in future, therefore, no expenditure would

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:-

depreciated assets, then the AO is duty bound to take adverse cognizance and resort to action under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The discovery of this mistake in the current year does not given any leeway to the appellant to make a grotesque and absurd claim of revision of WDV on account of subsidy in the present