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

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 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

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

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.,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.

iv) of the Act on consultancy income of INR 152 Lakhs; (ii) Addition towards late payment surcharge was made by taking debt period of 10 months and it should have been taken for 12 months. 5. Accordingly, ld. PCIT show-caused the assessee that the assessment order so passed is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

iv. Profit earned Rs. 57,65,625/- 8. As already pointed no compliance has been made to the various opportunities for hearing that have been afforded to the assessee during the course of appeal. In the circumstances, the merits of the case are being decided on the basis of grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. 9. Basically the issue

RUKMAN AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

1. 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#_23493 Rs, 50,00,000/- 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/ CN#_23497 Rs. 25,00,000/- 2. 3. 05.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#038102 Rs. 25,00,000/- 4. 07.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#2_9801 Rs, 50,00.,000/- 5. 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN# 2_9802 Rs. 25,00,000/- 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail Receipt Rs. 25,00,000/- 6. Saurabh Agarwal Amount

SAURABH AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

1. 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#_23493 Rs, 50,00,000/- 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/ CN#_23497 Rs. 25,00,000/- 2. 3. 05.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#038102 Rs. 25,00,000/- 4. 07.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#2_9801 Rs, 50,00.,000/- 5. 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN# 2_9802 Rs. 25,00,000/- 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail Receipt Rs. 25,00,000/- 6. Saurabh Agarwal Amount

SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

1. 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#_23493 Rs, 50,00,000/- 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/ CN#_23497 Rs. 25,00,000/- 2. 3. 05.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#038102 Rs. 25,00,000/- 4. 07.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#2_9801 Rs, 50,00.,000/- 5. 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN# 2_9802 Rs. 25,00,000/- 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail Receipt Rs. 25,00,000/- 6. Saurabh Agarwal Amount

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

1. 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#_23493 Rs, 50,00,000/- 02.03.2011 Sunview Retail/ CN#_23497 Rs. 25,00,000/- 2. 3. 05.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#038102 Rs. 25,00,000/- 4. 07.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN#2_9801 Rs, 50,00.,000/- 5. 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail/CN# 2_9802 Rs. 25,00,000/- 10.03.2011 Sunview Retail Receipt Rs. 25,00,000/- 6. Saurabh Agarwal Amount

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL CO., BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15 Solar Turbines International Vs Dcit, Company (Singapore Branch Of Circle-2, Solar Turbines International International Taxation, Company, Usa), Dehradun. 14 Tractor Road, Singapore, C/O Delloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Deloitte Centre Anchorage- Ii, Richmond Road, Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs3585J Assessment Year: 2014-15

iv) Whether on the facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the dominant intent of the parties was not to merely provide Service or merely sell the equipment but was to set up/establish the turbine rotor/gas producer assembly for power generation on similar lines of a turnkey project. 10 ITAs No.6710/Del/2017 and 441/Del/2018 Solar

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

iv) Photographs of agricultural activity being carried out by assessee at the time of sale of land (kindly see pages 223 to 224 of PB). v) Photographs of deep drain alongside aforesaid land used for irrigation activities (kindly see pages 221 to 222 of PB). vi) Copy of certificate of Sh. Ram Singh, husband of Smt. Saraswati Deviji, stating that