ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL CO., BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15 Solar Turbines International Vs Dcit, Company (Singapore Branch Of Circle-2, Solar Turbines International International Taxation, Company, Usa), Dehradun. 14 Tractor Road, Singapore, C/O Delloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Deloitte Centre Anchorage- Ii, Richmond Road, Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs3585J Assessment Year: 2014-15

TDS [ITA 4052/Del/2015. 2. The assessee has raised the issue of levy of surcharge and education cess. This issue is no longer res integra as amended involved to the clarification has been brought in the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2022 wherein it was clarified that the deduction for taxes paid as cess cannot be allowed

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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which

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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax 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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax 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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which

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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which

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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which

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

Addition qua service tax receipts from non-PSC partners 8. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs. 8,014,145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as AO) of levying penalty under section 271C of the Act for alleged

YES BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7498/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 7499/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15

Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as AO) of levying penalty under section 271C of the Act for alleged

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

addition in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the opinion of the auditors in the tax audit report under section 44AB.” We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on 6. record. Regarding the first proposition, the submissions and the case laws relied upon by the assessee has been carefully

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

addition in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the opinion of the auditors in the tax audit report under section 44AB.” 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Regarding the first proposition, the submissions and the case laws relied upon by the assessee has been carefully

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

addition in section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act solely on the basis of the opinion of the auditors in the tax audit report under section 44AB.” 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Regarding the first proposition, the submissions and the case laws relied upon by the assessee has been carefully

DR. VIRENDRA SWAROOP EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Dr. Virendra Swaroop Vs Acit Educational Foundation Central Circle 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur Dehradun Uttar Pradesh-208001 Pan-Aaajd0224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Shri Sumit Lal Chandanim, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur [“Pcit”] Passed U/S 12(Ab)(4)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“The Act”] Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12A Of The Act From Assessment Year 2023-24 & Onwards.

TDS and the same is adjusted towards the payment for said purpose and the fact that other party had noted the same as unsecured loan in his books of accounts is immaterial. 12. That the PCIT, had erred on facts and in law, in holding that there is cash transaction and adjustment towards the payment of car, whereas, there

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

addition of Rs.7,09,34,733/- made by the AO is deleted. Grounds of appeal raised are allowed in favor of the appellant.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the GIT (A) has erred

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

income for a charitable purposes. However, the CIT(A) did not find any merit in the said contention of the assessee and held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable in the assessee's case and addition on account of non- deduction of TDS

PRADEEP SHARDA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Pradeep Sharda Vs Acit 7, Inder Road, Dehradun Circle-1(2)(1) Uttarakhand -248001 Dehradun Pan-Adwps5692K Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10344/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 01.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Practicing Doctor & E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,16,70,906/- On 30.10.2017. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Additions Of Inr 15,84,870/- Comprising Of The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Inr 5,05,195/- & Treating The Agricultural Income Of Inr 6,25,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Of Inr 4,54,675/- As The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Cash Credit.

addition of INR 6,25,000/- made on account of agricultural income treated as undisclosed income and disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of INR 5,05,195/-. 4. Before us, in respect of Ground of appeal No.2, Ld.AR regarding disallowance u/s 40(ia) of the Act, ld. AR for the assessee drew our attention

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition of Rs.68,32,902/- in the order passed u/s 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act (''the Act''). 2. In law and on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in not affording a proper opportunity to the Assessee of being heard. The Assessment order passed is against the principle of natural justice. 3. Without prejudice

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

TDS. 13. That the explanations, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee have not been considered judiciously and examined and interpreted legally. 14. That the additions are based on surmises and conjectures and guesswork and cannot be justified by the material on record. 15. That in any case the additions sustained are highly excessive and cannot be justified