ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 69 of the Act, is grossly arbitrary, totally erroneous and wholly uncalled for. 5. After considering the detailed submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “5. Decision I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. AO and the submission

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SHRI SACHIN UPADHAYA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

section 68 of the act. 8.2 Before the first appellate authority, the assessee furnished date wise details of the transaction and submitted that substantial sum of money was withdrawn in cash from his bank account. Further explaining, the assessee submitted that the cash was withdrawn as the assessee was in the process of buying

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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons this

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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons this

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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons this

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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons this

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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons 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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons 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

70,096/– u/s 44 BB of the act. The parties submitted that this is identical to the ground of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 which was dismissed by us following the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of the sedco Forex international incorporation versus CIT 399 ITR 1, therefore, for similar reasons this

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

70,78,864\n13,85,23,005\nCash withdrawals - Annual\n3,05,26,000\n1-40%\n4,42,00,000\n32%\nCash withdrawals - Prior to\n2,67,50,000\n35%\n2,98,00,000\n22%\n8th Nov\nAvg. monthly sales (for a\n64,23,239\n1,15,43,584\nperiod of 12 months)\n\nIt has been noticed from

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

70 .10 of Guidance Note on Tax Audit under section 44AB of the Act issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India wherein it has been mentioned that view taken by tax auditor is not binding on the appellant . The relevant paragraph has been reproduced as under: It will be appreciated that even Guidance Note on Tax Audit

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that Ground No. 1 relating to invocation of provisions of section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act for short] is to be allowed in favour of the Revenue as the ld CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s stand

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that Ground No. 1 relating to invocation of provisions of section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act for short] is to be allowed in favour of the Revenue as the ld CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s stand

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

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

70,464,943 Safety Environment & 11,355 Materials Technical & Engineering 316,786,095 Services Less: Reversal of Water (8,344,443) Transportation & other charges Total BG Exclusive 494,452,392 Production Cost. The above expenditure are in the nature of tanker expenditure, tug and boat expenditure, safety environment and material expenditure as well as technical and engineering services. During