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

Section 44DA, the revenue has to prove that the receipts are indeed or in the nature of FTS taxable u/s 9(1)(vi i). 22. With regard to the reimbursement of “equipment lost in hole” amounting to Rs.11,01,66,066/- as includible in the gross receipts as opposed to the claim of the assessee that the same being

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

Section 44DA, the revenue has to prove that the receipts are indeed or in the nature of FTS taxable u/s 9(1)(vi i). 22. With regard to the reimbursement of “equipment lost in hole” amounting to Rs.11,01,66,066/- as includible in the gross receipts as opposed to the claim of the assessee that the same being

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

capital gain for his 1/6th share for the very same assessment year i.e. 2011-12. 9. Our view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT [(1977) 107 ITR 477 (P & H) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “11. It is no doubt true

LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 54F of the Act in respect of reinvestment made in new house property. This action of learned Assessing Officer was upheld by learned CIT(A). 3 AY: 2013-14 5. It would be relevant to understand the behavior of the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of the properties, which could be understood from the following table

HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

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.

gains of the real estate business of sale, purchase and leasing activities can be termed as incidental to the attainment of trust's objectives and are in the nature of commercial activities carried out for purposes other than for the objects of the trust. Therefore, vide impugned order, ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration granted u/s 12A/12AA or 12AB

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\nSd/-\n(MANISH AGARWAL)\nACCOUNΤΑΝΤ ΜΕMBER\nDate: 28

capital tools M.E. Ltd.\nunder the head \"Salaries\".\nThe assessee does not get the benefit of exclusionary clause 2 of sec.\n9(1)(vii) since this activity executing annual maintenance contract and\nconsultancy is not a mining activity and is purely technical service.\nSimilarly, these nature of activities are not covered under provisions of\nsec. 44BB and royalty in nature

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

Capital gains v. Income from other sources. 7.1. Now, let us examine Section 11 and Section 40 to decide this controversy. Section 11 to 13 is a part of Chapter 3 under the heading "Income which does not form the part of the total income". Section 11 (1

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(14). Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete\nthe addition of Rs.2,13,16,178 made Page 48 of 50 AAВСТ7938C-\nTRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD A.Y. 2017-18 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-\n26/1079069899(1) on account of sale of agricultural land under the\nhead Long Term Capital gain

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act has to be that of the revisionary authority and cannot be at the behest of some other subordinate authority. In the facts of the present appeal, it is abundantly clear that the exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act is not due to any independent application of mind by the revisionary authority

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

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

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

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

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

CAPITAL A/C\n630849.81 CLOSING STOCK\n49702307.00\nHDB FINANCIAL SERVICES\n(AS CERTIFIED BY PARTNERS)\n22500000.00\nHDFC LTD\n16000000.00 CASH IN HAND\n10789-16.00\nAXIS BANK\n2103284.16\nIDBI BANK\n2427220.00\nHDFC BANK\n50000.00\nUNSECURED LOAN\n100000.00\nIAS PER ANNEXURE B)\n9950000.00 KOTAK MAHINDRA\n\nCURRENT LIABILITIES\nLOANS & ADVANCES\n& PROVISIONS:\n1748596.48 CHEQUES IN HAND\n2250000.00\nSUNDRY CREDITORS\n28522350.00

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

section 50Cis applicable. The AO ignored the material facts of the case and applicability of law and also failed to compute Long Term Capital Gain and business profit as well, hence, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. It is apparent that the Assessing officer has passed assessment order on 22.08.2022 u/s 143 r.w.s