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

9 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 does not have a clause similar to Article 12(6) of the India-UK DTAA, and therefore, it is once again submitted that the aforesaid decision in case of B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd. will not apply to the facts of the instant case. The only issue that arises for consideration

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

9 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 does not have a clause similar to Article 12(6) of the India-UK DTAA, and therefore, it is once again submitted that the aforesaid decision in case of B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd. will not apply to the facts of the instant case. The only issue that arises for consideration

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

9 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 does not have a clause similar to Article 12(6) of the India-UK DTAA, and therefore, it is once again submitted that the aforesaid decision in case of B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd. will not apply to the facts of the instant case. The only issue that arises for consideration

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.

1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur ('PCIT") under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act ('impugned order"), cancelling the registration granted to the Appellant trust, is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and barred by time

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

9(1)(vi), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of these cases. 169. Our answer to the question posed before us, is that the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

9. Before us, the arguments taken up before the authorities below have been reiterated. 10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does

DDIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

9. Before us, the arguments taken up before the authorities below have been reiterated. 10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC., DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

9. Before us, the arguments taken up before the authorities below have been reiterated. 10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does

SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4561/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 3824/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smith International Inc., Vs Adit, 806-807, Powai Plaza, Central International Taxation, Avenue, Hiranandani Garden, Dehradun Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs3148R

9. Before us, the arguments taken up before the authorities below have been reiterated. 10. We have perused the record before us and the rationale of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for deciding whether a receipt would be assessed u/s 44BB or as FTS or Royalty does

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 in regard to interest paid to NBFC. The ld. AR submitted referring to the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which states that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed

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 in regard to interest paid to NBFC. The ld. AR submitted referring to the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which states that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed

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

TDS in regard to interest paid to NBFCs. The ld. AR submitted referring to the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which states that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed

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

9. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 1,22,689/- on payment to Utkal Auto. 10. That the AO and DRP have grossly erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs 5,41,080/- being payment to NOV Brandt Oilfield. 11. That

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

TDS AO passed an order dated 29 August 2016 under section 271C levying penalty of Rs.1,86,539 being 100% of the alleged non-deduction of tax at source including interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that, 1) UEPPCB is a statutory organisation constituted under the section 4 of Water (Prevention

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

TDS AO passed an order dated 29 August 2016 under section 271C levying penalty of Rs.1,86,539 being 100% of the alleged non-deduction of tax at source including interest under section 201(1 A) of the Act. It was submitted by the assessee that, 1) UEPPCB is a statutory organisation constituted under the section 4 of Water (Prevention

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of the Act. 4. In facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in computing the Income of the Assessee as per Section 44DA of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the cost of materials of Rs. 493,200/- on the ground

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

TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provisions of section 195 needs to be read with the provisions of sections 5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion

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

TDS, for short) is not liable to be deducted. Further, the provisions of section 195 needs to be read with the provisions of sections 5 and 9 of the Act. A combined reading would suggest that the payment made not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Act, tax at source was not liable to be deducted. From the discussion