RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

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

10) is decided in favour of the assessees and the orders of the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) on this issue is upheld on the ground that the returns filed under section 153A are returns filed under section 139(1).” 14. On perusal of provisions of section 153A of the Act, we find that there

MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,DEHRADUN vs. DY.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: the date of agreement. In his reply AR of the assessee submitted that only Rs.14,00,415/- was received during the year and the assessee has inadvertently forgot to include this amount in its income. So, this may be considered as income from transfer of the above property. He furnished receipt of the above amount which is place on record. MDDA

20,841 Sq. Meters of was given to the Tehri Housing Development Corporation (hereinafter, the ‘THDC’), a State Government Corporation, on lease for the developmental work of Rehabilitation of urban residents by Tehri DAM. The said land was controverted into free hold during the Page 3 MDDA relevant year on receipt of amount of Rs.14,10,001/- whose value

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. MAHALAXMI BUILDWELL, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mahalaxmi Buildwell, Ward-1(1)(2), 118, Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Aazfm1835G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mayank Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits to the tune of Rs.3.16 crores; reading as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished the written submission and the following documents: 1. Bank Account Statement 2. Copy of sale deed of the property purchased 3. Balance Sheet of the firm as on 31.03.2015 4. Confirmation Statement

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC- HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

10,000/- on account of alleged\npurchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged unexplained\ninvestment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n6. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making\nand confirming addition of Rs.10,66,71,000/- on account of alleged\npurchase of property from Mr. Mohan Pal as alleged

INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year : 2015-16 Intecsea Asia Pacific N Vs. Acit, International Bhd Taxation, Circle-1, Kpmg Salarpuria Knowledge Dehradun City, Orwell Unit 3, 6Th Floor Sy. No. 83/2, Plot 2, Raidurg, Hyderabad 500081 (Appellant) (Respondent)

20. Preparation of all Detailed Design AFC drawings (similar to PRP 2) and documents related to the above scope 21. Review of vendor documentation like Drawings, Data sheets, Engineering Calculations and miscellaneous reports 22. Engineering Management to achieve above scope. 23.Attending meetings with Employer/Contractor (base price includes on 3 meetings in India per Season/Phase for one person). 24.Providing office space

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

20,29,195/- and offered to tax u/s 44BB of the Act on presumptive basis @ 10% of receipts amounting to Rs 193,32,02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

20,29,195/- and offered to tax u/s 44BB of the Act on presumptive basis @ 10% of receipts amounting to Rs 193,32,02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

20,29,195/- and offered to tax u/s 44BB of the Act on presumptive basis @ 10% of receipts amounting to Rs 193,32,02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Asst Year 2015-16 is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 5223/Del/2018 (A. Y.: 2015-16) Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 14Th Floor, Tower-C, Building Circle-2, No. 1, Dlf City, Phase-Ii, International Taxation, Gurgaon Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs1107J

20,29,195/- and offered to tax u/s 44BB of the Act on presumptive basis @ 10% of receipts amounting to Rs 193,32,02,920/-. 4.3. We find that there is absolutely no dispute that the assessee is engaged in the business of exploration of mineral oils. We find that the assessee had offered income on presumptive basis by applying

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.”

68,564/- 14 being depreciation on assets acquired from UJVNL and Rs.45,31,58,363/- on account of capacity charges, deemed generation charges and capacity index incentive. We find, the ld.CIT(A) deleted both the additions, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We find, both the issues stand decided by the Tribunal in assessee

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

68. The addition of Rs.30,00,000/- is confirmed accordingly.” 6. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the same explanation as was made before the ld. CIT(A) and no evidence was submit to support the claim that the cash was actually received from Shri Madan Lal and there were wrong entries done by the accountant in the books

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC-, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross

SH. SURINDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross

SH.SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT , CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC, , HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross

SH.SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DEHRADUN, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being alleged unexplained unsecured loans. 7. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making and confirming addition of Rs.23,00,000/- for alleged sale of property to Mrs. Daljit Taneja. 8. The adequate opportunities of being heard and opportunity to cross

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,177.00 by estimating the net profit @1.82%, which is highly arbitrary, unjust and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT (A) has also confirmed the same. 9. That the Assessing Officer/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in law in making the ad- hoc addition/disallowance

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,177.00 by estimating the net profit @1.82%, which is highly arbitrary, unjust and against the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. CIT (A) has also confirmed the same. 9. That the Assessing Officer/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in law in making the ad- hoc addition/disallowance