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

11 against the order of the learned CIT – A –II, Dehradun dated 31 July 2013 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of The Income Tax Act dated 14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both

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

11 against the order of the learned CIT – A –II, Dehradun dated 31 July 2013 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of The Income Tax Act dated 14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both

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

11 against the order of the learned CIT – A –II, Dehradun dated 31 July 2013 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of The Income Tax Act dated 14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both

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

11 against the order of the learned CIT – A –II, Dehradun dated 31 July 2013 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of The Income Tax Act dated 14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both

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

11 against the order of the learned CIT – A –II, Dehradun dated 31 July 2013 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of The Income Tax Act dated 14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both

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

11 against the order of the learned CIT – A –II, Dehradun dated 31 July 2013 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of assessment passed by The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (3) of The Income Tax Act dated 14 May 2013 was partly allowed. Both

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. EXPRESS DRILLING SYSTEMS LLC, DEHRADUN

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Dcit, Express Drilling Circle-1, Vs. Systems Llc, International Taxation, C/O Nangia & Co., 1St Floor, Ida, 46, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection No. 13/Del/2018 (In I.T.A No.6114/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Express Drilling Systems Llc, Dcit, Vs. C/O Nangia & Co., Circle-1, 1St Floor, Ida, 46, International Taxation, E.C. Road, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aabce6891R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2) by the eligible assessee. (14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means

G & T RESOURCES (EUROPE) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5553/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2004-05 G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd., Vs Adit, C/O F-04 & 05, Triveni Commercial International Taxation, Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, Dehradun New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcg9877F Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. T. S. Mapwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2006. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 Read Together With Section 147 Of The Income 1Ax Act, 1961. 2. That In The Absence Of Any New Facts, Other Than The Ones Already On Record Based On Which The Assessment Order Was Passed, Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After Expiry Of Four Years Are Bad In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. That, The Learned Ao Having Considered The Facts, Applied The Spirit Of The Boards Instructions As Contained In Notification 1767 In A Speaking Assessment Order Erred In Initiating Proceedings Under Section 148 After The Expiry Of Four Years Merely Because In A Subsequent

2) was issued on 12.10.2004. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed accepting the returned income. 4. As per the Assessment Order, the assessee has offered income from services performed in India u/s 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the deemed profit of 10% and income on sale of the spares carried outside India @1% as the deemed

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings, for 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 21 to 23/DDN/2019 C.O. Nos. 20 & 21/DDN/2019 whatever may be the reason, the assessee did not furnish the requisite details regarding share application

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings, for 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 21 to 23/DDN/2019 C.O. Nos. 20 & 21/DDN/2019 whatever may be the reason, the assessee did not furnish the requisite details regarding share application

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

11. In addition to the above ONGC ruling and the Instruction issued by CBDT, Ld. Counsel also relied upon the following decisions in support of its claim that services in relation to “mining or like activity” are excluded from the definition of FTS vide Explanation 2 under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and therefore taxable under section

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 152/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Ita No. 153/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Intecsea Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd, 13A, Subhash Road, Income Road No. 11, Barijara Hills, Tax Officer, Dehradun-248001 Hyderabad-500034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3002L Assessee By : Sh. Siddesh Choudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals

11. In addition to the above ONGC ruling and the Instruction issued by CBDT, Ld. Counsel also relied upon the following decisions in support of its claim that services in relation to “mining or like activity” are excluded from the definition of FTS vide Explanation 2 under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and therefore taxable under section

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

section 2(19AA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it was seen that the assessee had failed to comply with the terms, as the order of the Govt, of India, Ministry of Power dated 05.11.2001 was not a Gazette Notification, but was only a provisional order. Hence, the assessee company had failed to fulfill this final condition as well

AJAY KUMAR MAMGAIN,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 148 of the income tax act as well as confirmation of addition u/s 68 of Rs 11 lakhs. 2

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2 Reena Verma 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that section 40A (3) of the Act is wholly in applicable to the facts of the appellant since payments were covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and as such disallowance sustained is contrary to law and facts and hence untenable

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 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,11,169. However, the disallowances totaling to Rs. 2,12,426 have been suo-moto made by the assessee. Therefore, to prevent double addition, the difference of Rs. 8,65,98,743 was added by the AO to the total income. The AO proposed to disallow the expenses by alleging that since the said expenses had been incurred

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account