SHERWATER GEOSERVICES LTD. INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,DEHRADUN vs. AICT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component under Section 194J of the Act. 19. The question framed, is therefore, answered in the negative i.e. favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of DIT (International Taxation) Vs. M/s Schlumberger Asia Services

SAEXPLORATION INC INDIA PROJECTS OFFICE,DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS is required to be made on the service tax component under Section 194J of the Act. 19. The question framed, is therefore, answered in the negative i.e. favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.” 20. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of DIT (International Taxation) Vs. M/s Schlumberger Asia Services

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFF SHORE SERVICES INC , MAHARASHTRA

In the result, ground no.3 is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.241/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Halliburton Off Shore Services Inc.,Unit No.603, 6Th Floor, Tax, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Satellite Gazebo, East Wing,Guru Road, Hargovindji Marg,Andheri Mumbai, Navi Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Mumbai,Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaach5154M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS has been made u/s 19 AC instead of 194J. 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the direction of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Uttarakhand mentioned in its order that ‘’liberty is granted to the Revenue to approach this Court, if the aforesaid

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

19. The assessee furnished the bill wise income from two contracts as under:- 20. The assessee also furnished the entire invoices raised by it with ONGC and Petrogas E&P LLC. The gross receipts derived by the assessee from the contracts were Rs. 7,67,34,954/-. If the presumptive income @10% is applied as per section 44BB

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 to above and in law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in not computing

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

19. In view of the above discussion and respectfully relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) and the decision of Ld ITAT, Delhi in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty limited (ITA No. 2753/Del/ 2016) it is held that the receipts of the Assessee on account of post-stack inversion

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

19. In view of the above discussion and respectfully relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) and the decision of Ld ITAT, Delhi in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty limited (ITA No. 2753/Del/ 2016) it is held that the receipts of the Assessee on account of post-stack inversion

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

19. In view of the above discussion and respectfully relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) and the decision of Ld ITAT, Delhi in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty limited (ITA No. 2753/Del/ 2016) it is held that the receipts of the Assessee on account of post-stack inversion

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

19. In view of the above discussion and respectfully relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) and the decision of Ld ITAT, Delhi in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty limited (ITA No. 2753/Del/ 2016) it is held that the receipts of the Assessee on account of post-stack inversion

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on pre- engineering and survey was belatedly made, therefore, he excluded the expenses of Rs. 35,18,206/- on the ground of application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on pre- engineering and survey was belatedly made, therefore, he excluded the expenses of Rs. 35,18,206/- on the ground of application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was also noticed that the AO had disallowed the said amount and the AO has calculated the income of the assessee from Inside India activity

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

19,265/- on accrual basis 4. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Government Corporation, filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 declaring tentative losses of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- and (-) Rs.20,48,070/- respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessments

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

19,265/- on accrual basis 4. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that the assessee, a Government Corporation, filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 declaring tentative losses of (-) Rs.76,05,926/- and (-) Rs.20,48,070/- respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessments

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should be applied;  Further, the appellant has also drawn attention to the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. TVS Electronics (Supra) has been overruled

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,ABU DHABI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should be applied;  Further, the appellant has also drawn attention to the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. TVS Electronics (Supra) has been overruled

GULF PIPING COMPANY WLL,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

2) of the Act. It is argued that the provisions which are more beneficial - i.e. Treaty provisions or Income-tax Act, i.e. either of the two should be applied;  Further, the appellant has also drawn attention to the fact that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. TVS Electronics (Supra) has been overruled

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

19,760/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2011 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs 8,49,215/-. Amongst various additions made by the ld. AO in the said assessment , one such addition was on account of mismatch / difference in purchases amounting to Rs 42,650/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 43CA of the Act and further deletion of addition of INR\n2,24,34,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act\ntowards cash deposits during demonetization.\n\n6. Regarding Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 taken against the\ndeletion of additions of cash deposit during the demonetization\nperiod in Specified bank notes

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

2 accordingly stands dismissed. 14. Facts relating to Ground No. 3 pertaining to disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) are that the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various parties and had paid interest of Rs. 19,98,542/- @ 1.6% per month during the year under consideration. The AO also noted that the assessee