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

TDS o the interest amount of Rs.58,39,706/- paid to the said two NBFCs. According to the ld. CIT(A), as per second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee could be prevented from the garb of this section if and only if the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default under

SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri C.N. Prasad[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Schlumberger Asia Services Deputy Director Of Income Tax Limited, (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building Dehradun No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan-Aadcs1107J Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Deputy Director Of Income Tax Schlumberger Asia Services (International Taxation), Limited, Dehradun 14Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.1, Dlf City, Phase Ii, Gurgaon-122002 Pan- Aadcs1107J Revenue Assessee Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kappor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. T.S.Mapwal, Sr.Dr

TDS has not been given. The Id. AO must do so at the time of giving effect to this order. 10. Ground no. 9 challenges the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. This ground is allowed following the case of Maersk reported in 334 ITR 79 (UK). 11. Ground nos. 10 and 11 challenge the initiation of penalty

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by Ld. CIT(A), Noida-2. In this case, the Revenue has filed the appeal basically challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) in giving relief to the assessee on account of alleged deduction of tax at source u/s 194C of the Act instead of section 194J

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 16.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)- Noida-2. In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have held the receipts on account of IP Charges received from Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. amounting to Rs.77,66,43,479/- to be in the nature of “Royalty

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [\"the Act\"] arising from the assessment order dated\n21.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to\n assessment year 2017-18.\n\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm,\nengaged in the development of real estate and in construction\nactivities. The return

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

SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Solar Turbines Vs. Dcit, International Company International Taxation, (Singapore Branch Of Solar Cirrcle-2, Turbines International Dehradun Company, Usa), M/S. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Deloitte Centre, Anchorage Ii, #100/2, Richmond Road, Bangalore -560025 Pan: Aajcs3585J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2026 Order

TDS [ITA 4052/Del./2015] The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. We next notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)’s order dated 30th August, 2017 rejecting its section

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

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is a legal issue and does not require verification of any facts. Hence, it is admitted and taken up for adjudication along with main grounds of appeal. 5. From the perusal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein except the disallowance of INR 30,000/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the other additions/disallowances were challenged. Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions/disallowance made and further, accepted the contention

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT-DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment orders, all dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment orders, all dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal

MOHAN PAL,HALDWANI, NAINITAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, ACIT - DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment orders, all dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that