ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

68 of the Act is not justified. The Ld A.R also submitted that the SBNs have been collected by the assessee prior to the appointed date of 31.12.2016, i.e., only from 31.12.2016, the assessee is precluded from accepting SBNs from its members. In this view of the matter, the reasoning relating to contravention of rules of RBI also fails

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.”

34,894/- on this account is deleted.” 10. After considering that the issue involved is identical, following the orders of my learned predecessors in previous assessment years and my own order in AY 2011-12 and after noting that the issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee following the refusal of permission to the Department

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

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

10 per cent of the cost. In the absence of any basis for valuing the obsolete items at 50 per cent of the cost, the Tribunal could not have upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer .” 40 . Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. – 240 ITR 256 (De l.) held that

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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

34. Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer the parties stated before us that ground number 1 – 4 of the appeal are identical to ground number 1 – 7 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2006 – 07. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, their arguments are also same

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 of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

10 per cent. of the cost. In the absence of any basis for valuing the obsolete items at 50 per cent. of the cost, the Tribunal could not have upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer.” 40. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. – 240 ITR 256 (Del.) held that

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:-

Section 143(3) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law rejecting the contention of the assessee that approval having been granted in a mechanical manner is bad in law, hence the consequential proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are illegal and liable

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD., DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M E LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017