IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member &

Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 152/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 ITA No. 153/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19

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, Judicial Member:

These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 152&

153/DDN/2025 for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076592231(1) & 1077786776(1) dated 30.05.2025 and 25.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3)

r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively.

2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

3. The Revenue raises the following identical substantive grounds in it’s instant appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law by overlooking that the activities carried out by the assessec did not fall in the exclusion clause of section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law in ignoring the nature of activities and scope of work as per the contracts of the assessec in arriving at conclusion that the receipts of the assessee were not in the nature of FTS u/s

9(1)(vii) of the Act.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law in failing to note that the Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2010 makes it clear that any service which falls within the ambit of section 44DA, even if it is in connection with prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils as stipulated in section 44BB, has to be assessed u/s 44DA of the Act.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by completely overlooking the amended provisions of section 9(1)(vii), 44AB, 44DA of the Act, which were applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

5. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the finding of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. Vs. CIT(IT)-3, New Delhi that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed in the ONGC case and it has been made amply clear that the nature of receipts in lieu of the contract is defined by the nature of specific activity.

6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by allowing the services being nature of mining and to be taxable u/s 44BB of the Income Tax Act.”

4. We next note that the learned CIT(A) has followed the tribunal’s order in assessee’s appeal ITA No. 5577/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2015-16) itself whilst concluding that it’s venue realized herein does not amount to Fee for Technical Services (“FTS”) u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Act as under:

“8. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant finding of the impugned order as well as material preferred to before us. During the relevant assessment year the appellant assessee has received consideration from ONGC and Leighton India for providing engineering consultancy services. During the course of assessment proceeding the AO had asked the Appellant to show cause why the receipts from ONGC (and Leighton) should not be treated as FTS. The Appellant explained that the consideration received by it from ONGC and Leighton India were in relation to the exploration and production of oil and natural gas and did not fall within the definition of FTS under section 9(1) (vii) of the Act. Since the consideration received by the Appel