MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

38 of RRJ Securities with the Court laying stress on the existence of material that may be reflective of undisclosed income being of vital importance. All the aforenoted judgments thus reinforce the requirement of incriminating material having an ineradicable link to the estimation of income fora particular AY. 57. It becomes pertinent to note that both Sections 153A and 153C

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

38 of RRJ Securities with the Court laying stress on the existence of material that may be reflective of undisclosed income being of vital importance. All the aforenoted judgments thus reinforce the requirement of incriminating material having an ineradicable link to the estimation of income fora particular AY. 57. It becomes pertinent to note that both Sections 153A and 153C

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

38 of RRJ Securities with the Court laying stress on the existence of material that may be reflective of undisclosed income being of vital importance. All the aforenoted judgments thus reinforce the requirement of incriminating material having an ineradicable link to the estimation of income fora particular AY. 57. It becomes pertinent to note that both Sections 153A and 153C

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. We find, as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the Ld. Addl.CIT in terms of section 153D of the Act. This

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. We find, as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the Ld. Addl.CIT in terms of section 153D of the Act. This

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. We find, as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the Ld. Addl.CIT in terms of section 153D of the Act. This

SHRI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KURUKSHETRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. We find, as per the scheme of the Act, for framing search assessments, the Ld. AO can pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the Ld. Addl.CIT in terms of section 153D of the Act. This

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

38,866/– being 2% of the sum of ₹ 966,943,294/–. The assessee also claimed deduction on account of reimbursement of ₹ 4,020,380/– from gross receipt which was added to the income of the assessee by the AO in the original assessment following the decision of the honourable High Court in case of CIT versus Halliburton offshore services

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

section 63 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (did not amount*)(* should read “amounted to”) to a demerger. In the circumstances, it is held that the view of the A.O. that the assets have been acquired free of cost and, therefore, the depreciation is not allowable on them is not sustainable. In the circumstances, the disallowance and addition of Rs.4

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

Reassessment u/s 148 –not pressed 6. Ground No. 2 to 7-Transfer Pricing issue: Intra group services: 7. During year, the intra-group services received by the assessee from the Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.229,61,81,619/- on account of management charges, information technology charges and general administration charges. 8. The said transaction was benchmarked by the appellant

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

Reassessment u/s 148 –not pressed 6. Ground No. 2 to 7-Transfer Pricing issue: Intra group services: 7. During year, the intra-group services received by the assessee from the Associated Enterprises amounting to Rs.229,61,81,619/- on account of management charges, information technology charges and general administration charges. 8. The said transaction was benchmarked by the appellant

M/S. SHARDA EXPORTS,MEERUT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 147 of the Act, the reassessment deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AO on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT reported in 308 ITR 38 and CIT Vs. Suren International Pvt. Ltd reported