MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

26. We’ve carefully considered the rival contention and find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of ONGC versus CIT (supra) wherein even the second leg contract was also considered to be eligible for the preferential treatment u/s 44 BB of the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961.” 8. The Assessing Officer has computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,38,95,000/- which was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) by filing a belated appeal. Before the CIT(A), assessee has also filed additional evidence to explain the source of various transaction of investment/purchase

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 of the Paper Book filed by the\nassessee]. Ld.AR submits that the assessee has shifted from the\nPage | 4\naforesaid address and was regularly filing his return of income\nsince 2017-18 form the new address i.e. “Gali No.25, Amit Gram,\nGumaniwala, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand” and in support filed the\ncopies of acknowledgement of the ITR filed since

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter- linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 of the Paper Book filed by the\nassessee]. Ld.AR submits that the assessee has shifted from the\nPage | 4\nITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024\naforesaid address and was regularly filing his return of income\nsince 2017-18 form the new address i.e. “Gali No.25, Amit Gram,\nGumaniwala, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand” and in support filed the\ncopies of acknowledgement

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

10% profit rate in the case of Shri Amit Sharma thus, once it is not treated as gratuitous payment to the assessee, no action should be taken in the hands of the assessee based on such papers. He also drew our attention to the fact that in the case of R. Rajesh Ranjan, the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

SANJAY RAWAT,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CRICLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

10% profit rate in the case of Shri Amit Sharma thus, once it is not treated as gratuitous payment to the assessee, no action should be taken in the hands of the assessee based on such papers. He also drew our attention to the fact that in the case of R. Rajesh Ranjan, the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

SH.SANJAY RAWAT,,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] Ita Nos.90, 95 & 104/Ddn/2024 [Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2013-14 & 2013-14] Sanjay Rawat Vs Acit 18S Ats Colony, Central Circle Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Ahopr5244E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

10% profit rate in the case of Shri Amit Sharma thus, once it is not treated as gratuitous payment to the assessee, no action should be taken in the hands of the assessee based on such papers. He also drew our attention to the fact that in the case of R. Rajesh Ranjan, the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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

271(l)(c) of the Act. These grounds are dismissed on the ground that mere initiation of penalty is not an appellable matter. 12. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with such part relief, the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- Revenue’s Appeal

M/S. VANTAGE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Vantage International Vs Dcit Management Co. (International Taxation), C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp, Circle-2, Aayakar Bhawan, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 13A, Subhash Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Dehradun (West), Mumbai, Aadcv3089Q (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. M. P. Lohia, Ca, Sh. Sanjay Shukla, Ca Respondent By Sh. Naveen Chandra Upadhyaya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2020

26,42,88,141 as against the returned income of INR 1,12,93,40,953; 2. erred in including reimbursement of service tax of INR 1,34,94,71,889 while computing gross receipts under section 44BB of the Act as opposed to Appellant’s claim for non taxability of such receipts; 3. erred in levying interest under section

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 16.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and / or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing ofthe appeal.” 2. Ground

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised

B G EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, DDIT/ ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1 )(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and /or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee has raised