SHRI VARDHAN GHILDIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vardhan Ghildiyal Vs. Ito, Ca Mayank Kumar Aggarwal Ward 1(2) (5) 286A 1St Floor, Garhi Cantt. Dehradun Dakra Road, Dehradun- 248001 Pan – (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains income and also income from other sources. The fact of withdrawal of Rs. 15,00,000/- from assessee’s own account on 23.09.2016 is not disputed. It is not disputed the same is KCC ( Kisan Credit Card) Limit Account. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that on 08.11.2016 demonetization was declared by the Central Government

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

additional amount invested in the purchase of new asset. The agricultural income shown at Rs 11,81,536/- is not supported by any evidence with regard to land in possession on which agricultural activities have been carried out or expenditure incurred on agricultural operations . 3. In view of the above facts, the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Income

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house. 26. The appeals are, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned judgments are quashed and set aside and the Authorities are directed

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain\" to the extent of\nRs.2,13,16,178/-. Further, the assessee has claimed agricultural income earned\nduring the year. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee has not claimed any\nexpenditure for earning the agricultural income, it clearly shows that the\nassessee was not engaged in agricultural activities, accordingly, he proceeded\nto make the addition

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

addition of the income declared by the assessee in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act towards the capital gains

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Income Tax Department, which clearly shows a divergent stand taken by the very same Assessing Officer for the very same assessment year for two different assessees on the very same transaction. Hence, we direct the learned AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs. 1 crore paid in cash to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. 9. Since

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Income Tax Department, which clearly shows a divergent stand taken by the very same Assessing Officer for the very same assessment year for two different assessees on the very same transaction. Hence, we direct the learned AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs. 1 crore paid in cash to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. 9. Since

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Income filed for the period under consideration. 2 KomaSinghal 3. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that, the assessee had sold a property situated at MaujaJeevangarh, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun for a total sale consideration of Rs. 91,52,000/-. The assessee was required to furnish the working on the capital gain accrued to the Assessee

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

additions as under:- House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

additions as under:- House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain

SUNIL SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him From Time To Time

addition of Rs 48,55,140/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the Asst Year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs 2,65,473/-. The assessee earns income

SH. IRSHAD ILAHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(3), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

Income from Capital Gains". 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the CIT(A) NFAC did not give any opportunity by issue of Notices u/s 250 before natural justice.” Additional

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains, and other items of income). 2. The Agreement shall also apply to any identical or substantially similar taxes which are imposed by either Contracting State after the date of signature of the present Agreement in addition

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

addition under section 69 of The Income Tax Act of Rs. 499000/–. 5. It was further noted that as assessee has sold the house property for ₹ 10 lakhs and no capital gain

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

gain and business profit on sale of plots which remained left during assessment by the AO, keeping in view the observations made after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard.” 5. Suffice to say, it is come on record that not only the assessee’s land in question has been found to be a capital asset but also

SIDHIDATRI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sidhidatri Builders & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Developers, C/O- R Gupta & Ward-2(3), Associates, 1St Floor, Mid Dehradun Building, 88-Nehru Colony, Dehradun Pan: Acgfs8424G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Praveen Goyal, Self Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

income arising from it as short-term capital gain. The AO may examine whether any other expenses like stamp duty charges, registration charges need to be deducted for calculation of short-term capital gain. Subject to this, the addition

LAKHME CHAND ASWANI ,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), HALDWANI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi] [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Lakhme Chand Aswani, Vs Ito, Gajajoli, Uttar Bareilly Road, Ward-1(2), Haldwani, Utarakhand. Haldwani. Pan-Agnpa7702N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Kacker, Adv. Respondent By Smt.Mayank Prabha Tomar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 Order

income escaping assessment in- spite of objections raised before the commencement of assessment proceedings. 3. The Ld ITO missed to note and failed to appreciate that agricultural land had been sold. 4. The Ld ITO missed to note and failed to appreciate that Capital Gains Long Term as well as Short Term was not applicable on agricultural land

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

capital gains of Rs.57,65,625/- in the assessee’s hands. We are further 2 Akram taken to the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion upholding the assessment findings to this effect reading as under: “7. Coming to the addition itself, the AO received information that industrial land measuring 10490 sq. mtrs. situated at village Lakeshwari, Bhagwanpur, Roorkee was sold