ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD., DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M E LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD., DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD., DEHRADUN

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

68,74,954 as the income attributable to the Appellants PE from offshore supply of goods and thereby confirming the addition of INR 34,20,203. Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in arbitrary applying the 3 ITA Nos. 7334, 7477 & 7848/Del./2017

D BALI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LTD.,KASHIPUR (U.S.NAGAR) vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KASHIPUR, KASHIPUR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) D Bali Infrastructure & Vs. Dcit, Developers Ltd., Circle-2, Kashra No. 151, Apna Ghar Kashipur Village-Gangapur, Kundeshwari Road, Kashipur, Dist. Utham Singh Nagar-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcd3599D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2025

2 of his assessment order observed that in response to the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaires issued to the assessee, the authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed written submissions to the queries raised and produced all the relevant documents that were called

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. These appeals of the Revenue for the Assessment Years (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2012-13 and 2013-14 are directed against orders dated 24.11.2016 and 30.11.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. 3. Vide 8 grounds of appeal; the Revenue has raised following issues: (i) Computing income by taking loss at (-) Rs.96,68

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2. These appeals of the Revenue for the Assessment Years (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2012-13 and 2013-14 are directed against orders dated 24.11.2016 and 30.11.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A)’]. 3. Vide 8 grounds of appeal; the Revenue has raised following issues: (i) Computing income by taking loss at (-) Rs.96,68

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee. Ld. AO passed assessment order dated 14.03.2023. In pursuance to assessment order dated 14.03.2023. Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 05.09.2023. 3. Against assessment order dated 14.03.2023 and penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Sections 142(1) dated 26.09.2022, 01.11.2022, letter dated 22.12.2022 and show- cause-notices dated 29.12.2022, 15.02.2023, 27.02.2023 and 10.03.2023, no compliance was made by Assessee. Ld. AO passed assessment order dated 14.03.2023. In pursuance to assessment order dated 14.03.2023. Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 05.09.2023. 3. Against assessment order dated 14.03.2023 and penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed

SIDHARTH BUILDWELL LLP,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, C- 1(2)(1), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansidharth Buildwell Llp Vs. Acit, 1, Darshiningate, Kanwali, Circle 1(2)(1), Kanwali B.O. Dehradun Haripuram, Dehradun Pan: Acufs6966M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Sachev, Ca Revenue By: Sh. A.S.Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Order : 27.02.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.11.2017 Declaring Income At Rs. 95,08,920/- For Assessment Year 2017- 18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reasons “Higher Turnover Reported In Service Tax Return As Compared To Itr, Large Increase In Unsecured Loans During The Year, Real Estate Business

142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various persons. The assessee was asked to produce documentary proof to verify the genuineness of the unsecured loans taken during the year. In response, the assessee has submitted

SH.SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DEHRADUN, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn

SH.SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT , CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC-, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC, , HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn

SH. SURINDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC- HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

2. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the categories for compulsory scrutiny as per criteria of selection of cases for compulsory scrutiny. 3. There was no search warrant in the name of appellant. There was no incriminating material seized during the search operation from hands of the appellant and there was no panchnama drawn