SUNIL SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him From Time To Time

section 68 of the Act itself would not come into operation. On this limited count itself, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. Sunil Srivastava vs. ITO 9. On the contrary, the assessee tried to furnish the evidences that were available with him to prove that he had procured a contract to supply

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

68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting to Rs 10,84,47,712/-. 4.5. The ld. AO held that the service tax receipts mentioned in a) above should be included as part of gross contractual receipts taxable u/s 44BB of the Act. As far as amount received towards Lost in Hole, the ld. AO by following the decision

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

68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting to Rs 10,84,47,712/-. 4.5. The ld. AO held that the service tax receipts mentioned in a) above should be included as part of gross contractual receipts taxable u/s 44BB of the Act. As far as amount received towards Lost in Hole, the ld. AO by following the decision

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

68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting to Rs 10,84,47,712/-. 4.5. The ld. AO held that the service tax receipts mentioned in a) above should be included as part of gross contractual receipts taxable u/s 44BB of the Act. As far as amount received towards Lost in Hole, the ld. AO by following the decision

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

68,19,422/- c) Reimbursement amounting to Rs 10,84,47,712/-. 4.5. The ld. AO held that the service tax receipts mentioned in a) above should be included as part of gross contractual receipts taxable u/s 44BB of the Act. As far as amount received towards Lost in Hole, the ld. AO by following the decision

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

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)

22 October 1990, wherein the question whether prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oil can be termed as 'mining operations, was referred to the Attorney General of India for his opinion. The Attorney General has opined that such operations are mining operations and the expressions 'mining project' or 'like projects' occurring in Explanation 2 to Section

AMRIT VARSHA UDYOG LTD,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

10,506/- and Rs.53,00,074/-, respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Though a power of attorney has been filed on behalf of the assessee, both the Assessee’s representative and the Assessee remained absent on all the previous occasions. In view

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

22 Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in falling to appreciate that the proceedings under Section 153C are void ab initio and bad in law as the Satisfaction Note forming the basis of jurisdiction is undated and unsigned. Ground No. 23 Because on the facts and circumstances

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

22 Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in falling to appreciate that the proceedings under Section 153C are void ab initio and bad in law as the Satisfaction Note forming the basis of jurisdiction is undated and unsigned. Ground No. 23 Because on the facts and circumstances

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

22 Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in falling to appreciate that the proceedings under Section 153C are void ab initio and bad in law as the Satisfaction Note forming the basis of jurisdiction is undated and unsigned. Ground No. 23 Because on the facts and circumstances

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

22 October 1990, wherein the question whether prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oil can be termed as 'mining operations, was referred to the Attorney General of India for his opinion. The Attorney General has opined that such operations are mining operations and the expressions 'mining project' or 'like projects' occurring in Explanation 2 to Section

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

22 October 1990, wherein the question whether prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oil can be termed as 'mining operations, was referred to the Attorney General of India for his opinion. The Attorney General has opined that such operations are mining operations and the expressions 'mining project' or 'like projects' occurring in Explanation 2 to Section

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,11,169. However, the disallowances totaling to Rs. 2,12,426 have been suo-moto made by the assessee. Therefore, to prevent double addition, the difference of Rs. 8,65,98,743 was added by the AO to the total income. The AO proposed to disallow the expenses by alleging that since the said expenses had been incurred

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

22. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 2956/Del/2013 for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. 23. Now coming to the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer , in Ground Nos 1 – 7 are with respect to the taxability of the sum u/s 44BB of the income

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

22. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 2956/Del/2013 for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. 23. Now coming to the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer , in Ground Nos 1 – 7 are with respect to the taxability of the sum u/s 44BB of the income

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

22. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 2956/Del/2013 for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. 23. Now coming to the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer , in Ground Nos 1 – 7 are with respect to the taxability of the sum u/s 44BB of the income

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

22. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number 2956/Del/2013 for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. 23. Now coming to the grounds raised by the learned assessing officer , in Ground Nos 1 – 7 are with respect to the taxability of the sum u/s 44BB of the income