NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CI9RCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

NATIONAL OIL WELL VARCO PTE. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD),MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

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

Transfer Pricing Officer 3(2)(2) (“TPO”) for determination of arm’s length price of the specified domestic transactions (“SDT”) / international transactions undertaken by the Applicant. 9. The TPO vide order dated 30 January 2019 held that the applicant has earned more than ordinary profits from its Section 80-IC business and proposed an adjustment of Rs.5

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

Transfer Pricing Officer 3(2)(2) (“TPO”) for determination of arm’s length price of the specified domestic transactions (“SDT”) / international transactions undertaken by the Applicant. 9. The TPO vide order dated 30 January 2019 held that the applicant has earned more than ordinary profits from its Section 80-IC business and proposed an adjustment of Rs.5

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDNBHD,MALAYSIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

1) of the Act, is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, which would expire on 30.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, as per the provisions of Section 153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended

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

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

transfer pricing regulations. Ground No. 4 That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the functional profile of the Appellants PE is even below a low risk distributor and that the Appellants PE does not assume title of the goods sold in India and merely provides low end coordination support services

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

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

transfer pricing regulations. Ground No. 4 That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the functional profile of the Appellants PE is even below a low risk distributor and that the Appellants PE does not assume title of the goods sold in India and merely provides low end coordination support services

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

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

transfer pricing regulations. Ground No. 4 That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the functional profile of the Appellants PE is even below a low risk distributor and that the Appellants PE does not assume title of the goods sold in India and merely provides low end coordination support services

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

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

transfer pricing regulations. Ground No. 4 That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the functional profile of the Appellants PE is even below a low risk distributor and that the Appellants PE does not assume title of the goods sold in India and merely provides low end coordination support services

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

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

transfer pricing regulations. Ground No. 4 That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the functional profile of the Appellants PE is even below a low risk distributor and that the Appellants PE does not assume title of the goods sold in India and merely provides low end coordination support services

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

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

transfer pricing regulations. Ground No. 4 That Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the functional profile of the Appellants PE is even below a low risk distributor and that the Appellants PE does not assume title of the goods sold in India and merely provides low end coordination support services

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

10. We find identical issue came up before Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1317 of 2005 dated 16.07.2012. The questions raised before the Hon’ble Madras High Court are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

M/S. UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Ujvn Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner C/O. Mn/S. Rra Taxindia, Of Income, D-28, South Extension, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A, Part-I, Subhash Road, Dehradun New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacu6672R Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

10. We find identical issue came up before Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT, Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1317 of 2005 dated 16.07.2012. The questions raised before the Hon‟ble Madras High Court are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

10. I have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and I have already decided this issue i.e. whether tax 3 Akram can be levied on the assessee for purchase and sale of agricultural land in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand, one of the other 02 persons who sold the same land in question in his appeal