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

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

v) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in overlooking that the assessee was not engaged in any construction, assembly, mining or like project and had only provided ancillary services, and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

1) of the Act. iii. For the purpose of arriving at the capital gains in respect of sale of property in assessment year 2012-13, we find that the assessee had indeed considered the sale price as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority in terms of section 50C of 6 AY: 2013-14 the Act as the actual sale consideration

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

section 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 the Assessing Officer adopted the valuation report of Govt. valuer dated 16.12.2016 wherein the property was valued at Rs.3,39,57,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains on sale of land. The Assessing Officer adopted 1/6th share of the assessee, namely Late Krishan Kant Chahal and computed the long

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- II, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OEL TOOLS MIDDLE EAST LTD., DEHRADUN

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Weatherford Oil Tools Me Ltd, C/O. Nangia & Co, 3Rd Floor, Ncr Circle-Ii, International Taxation, Dehradun Plaza, Municipal, No. 24A, New Cantt Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacw1542G

v) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in overlooking that the software provided by the assessee was not actually used for mining or like project and thus did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act, in distinction to the lead case of Foramer inter alia covered

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

capital gains, and other items of income). 2. The Agreement shall also apply to any identical or substantially similar taxes which are imposed by either Contracting State after the date of signature of the present Agreement in addition to, or in place of, the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. 3. In this Agreement, the term "Indian

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

9 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. existent company. The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum. The directions of the TPO were implemented by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before

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

9 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. existent company. The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum. The directions of the TPO were implemented by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

9. Basically the issue that has been taken by the assessee in appeal is that income of Rs. 25,75,760/- was exempt from tax as it arose from the sale of agriculture land. It has been argued that the assessment order has been passed assuming incorrect facts and o. incorrect application of law and without giving sufficient opportunity

SH. IRSHAD ILAHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(3), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

V, Dehradun titled Smt. Ruby vs Smt. Irshad Illahi for claim of their share in the properties left behind by Late Shri Inayatullah, the late husband of the Appellant. Copy of the same is annexed per Annexure 4 to this submission for your ready reference, perusal and records. 4. The late husband of the Appellant, Late Shri Inayatullah inherited

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,50,95,314/-. While doing so, assessee had claimed a deduction under section 54EC of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- and under section 54B of a sum of Rs. 79,97,240/- (in dispute), (kindly see page 2 of AO order and page 7 of PB for Income Tax Return

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

1 KomaSinghal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “DEHRADUN” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 59/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Koma Singhal Vs. DCIT/ACIT 34F, Narendra Vihar Central Circle Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand- 248001 Uttarakhand PAN: BNIPS9413P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Harshit Gupta

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain is\nto be allowed as eligible for deduction u/s 80 IA of the Act. With these\ndirections, Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is partly\nallowed.\n15. Ground of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are with\nrespect to the addition on account of late payment surcharge (LPSC)\nfrom debtors as well as enhancement made