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

73,02,820/-. The assessee in its return of income admitted that there is a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The ld. AO observed that for availing the benefit of provisions of sectin 44BB of the Act, it is essential that assessee should have a PE in India ITA No. 6126/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5223/Del/2018 (Assessee) ITA No. 6173/Del/2017

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

73,02,820/-. The assessee in its return of income admitted that there is a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The ld. AO observed that for availing the benefit of provisions of sectin 44BB of the Act, it is essential that assessee should have a PE in India ITA No. 6126/Del/2017 & ITA No. 5223/Del/2018 (Assessee) ITA No. 6173/Del/2017

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

section 234A of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,125,414.” 63. We first come to the appeal of the assessee. Per ground number 1 – 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of revenue from offshore supply of imported material. Both the parties confirm that this is identical to ground number 1 – 2 of the appeal of the assessee

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

1)(vii) of the Act and therefore taxable under section 44BB of the Act:  Corpro Systems Limited, UK, In re [(2016) 389 ITR 0029];  Addl. DIT (International Taxation) vs Halliburtan Offshore Services Inc. [(2016) 47 CCH 0425] (Delhi ITAT);  ITO (International Taxation) vs. ONGC [(2016) ITA No. 1596, 1597, 1598 & 1599/Del/2012] (Delhi ITAT);  National Oil Well Maintenance Company

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

1)(vii) of the Act and therefore taxable under section 44BB of the Act:  Corpro Systems Limited, UK, In re [(2016) 389 ITR 0029];  Addl. DIT (International Taxation) vs Halliburtan Offshore Services Inc. [(2016) 47 CCH 0425] (Delhi ITAT);  ITO (International Taxation) vs. ONGC [(2016) ITA No. 1596, 1597, 1598 & 1599/Del/2012] (Delhi ITAT);  National Oil Well Maintenance Company

INTECSEA ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year : 2015-16 Intecsea Asia Pacific N Vs. Acit, International Bhd Taxation, Circle-1, Kpmg Salarpuria Knowledge Dehradun City, Orwell Unit 3, 6Th Floor Sy. No. 83/2, Plot 2, Raidurg, Hyderabad 500081 (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(vii) of the Act and therefore taxable under section 44BB of the Act: • Corpro Systems Limited, UK, In re [(2016) 389 ITR 0029]; • Addl. DIT (International Taxation) vs Halliburtan Offshore Services Inc. [(2016) 47 CCH 0425] (Delhi ITAT); • ITO (International Taxation) vs. ONGC [(2016) ITA No. 1596, 1597, 1598 & 1599/Del/2012] (Delhi ITAT); • National Oil Well Maintenance Company

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

1) of the Act. Ground No. 13: Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 13.1 The learned AO erred in law and in facts, in levying consequential interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground No. 14: Violation of principles of natural justice 14.1 The learned AO / DRP erred in law and in facts

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. V K AGARWAL & CO., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 As The Assessee Could Not Furnish/Produce The Confirmation Of Unsecured Loan From M/S Tirupati Investment. 3. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Be Set-A-Side & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored.

68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the learned AO. The learned AO in the remand report stated that the books of account were properly maintained by the assessee but, however, pointed out certain discrepancies on account of non-deduction of tax for certain expenses and non-allowability of certain expenses as deduction

METRO FROZEN FRUIT & VEGETABLES PVT. LTD.,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Metro Frozen Fruits & Dcit, Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. Circle Haridwar, Plot No.22, Rajpur, Vs Uttarakhan Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, Uttrakhand Pan-Aaecm4521F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Piyush Kuchhal, Fca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am, This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

68,863/- 57,69,771/- 27,76,846/ 3,15,73,341/- 30,25,318/- 2,85,48,023/- 6 A.Y. 2009-10 Particulars Rate Addition Deduction Total WDV as on Dep for the WDV as on 01.04.2008 Year 31.03.2009 More than Less than 180 Days 180 Days Computer

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

73,750/- in one or more accounts of cash deposits and assessee did not file return of income. After recording reasons, the case was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 25.03.2023 with prior approval of the DCIT, Dehradun. Despite intimation letter dated 17.08.2022, multiple notices under Sections 142(1) dated

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

73,750/- in one or more accounts of cash deposits and assessee did not file return of income. After recording reasons, the case was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 25.03.2023 with prior approval of the DCIT, Dehradun. Despite intimation letter dated 17.08.2022, multiple notices under Sections 142(1) dated

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

73,250/- may not be added to its income. Since, there was no response from the assessee, he proceeded to make the above said additions u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi. Several notices were issued to the assessee for hearing however