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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

34,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as the nature and source of the\nsaid money is proved to be out of books of accounts and is explained. Thus, the\ngrounds raised towards addition made u/s 69A by the appellant stands allowed on\nlaw as well as on facts and consequently the the rates of taxation levied

M/S. REGALLIA JEWELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Regallia Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 162, Basement Hardyan Central Circle, Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Dehradun Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr9572R Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Narendra S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

68,721.91 and not Rs. 3,34,79,178/- as understood by the ld AO and accordingly, there was only a difference of Rs. 97,25,729/- as against Rs. 1,14,15,273/- considered by the ld AO. The entire reconciliation of stock was submitted by the Assessee before the ld AO vide letter dated 15.12.2015 which

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.,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

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

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL 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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. 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

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

68. The ld. CIT DR has no objection for the above issue to be set aside to ld. AO/TPO. 69. After hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee

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.”

68,568/- on the assets acquired by the UJVNL and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings asked the assessee to explain why capacity charges, deemed generation charges and capacity index incentive amounting to Rs.45,31,58,363/- should not be added to the total income