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 on sale of\nsuch land.\n\nGround No. 3-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nwhether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,480/-\nmade by the AO on account of disallowance

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.

gain accrued to the Assessee on the sale of the aforesaid capital asset along with the necessary supporting documents. In response, the assessee furnished the requisite working along with certain supporting documents. On perusal of the same, it was observed by the A.O. that, the assessee had claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- towards cost of improvement of the capital asset

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain earned by the assessee in mutual funds and other securities. Admittedly, this was not the issue of limited scrutiny before the assessing officer. Therefore now the facts before us shows that assessing officer has made an adjustment to the total income of the assessee on the issue which was not part of the limited scrutiny issue for which

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,50,95,314/-. While doing so, assessee had claimed a deduction under section 54EC of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- and under section 54B of a sum of Rs. 79,97,240/- (in dispute), (kindly see page 2 of AO order and page 7 of PB for Income Tax Return

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

disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed 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

disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, RISHIKESH

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hig-8, Rishilok Colony, Ward-1(4)(1), Nehru Marg, Rishikesh, Rishikesh Uttarakhand Pan :Bcepg9295E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.K. Juneja, Adv. Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

gains disallowance/addition representing cost of improvement and expenditure on transfer etc. We make it clear that there is no denial to the fact of the assessee having sold/transferred his twin capital assets i.e. property no. 91, area-167.28 sq. mts. (with construction) at Ganganagar, Rishikesh and Plot No. 60B, Mohalla Friends Colony, Etawa, Uttar Pradesh. The Revenue’s vehement stand

KULAVENDRA KAUR,JASPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1) KASHIPUR, KASHIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 81/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Kulavendra Kaur Vs Income Tax Officer, M/S Gurukirpa Boutique, Village- Ward-2(2)(1), Hamirowal, Jaspur, Kashipur, Kashipur, Uttarakhand-244712 Uttarakhand-244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Dugpk4830R Assessee By : Sh. Harhit Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/10734919886(1) Dated 20.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

capital gains declared at her behest. 6. We find no reason to accept either party’s arguments in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has successfully discharged her onus to plead and prove the impugned cost of construction of Rs.25,00,000/- nor her the same could be altogether denied as each and every evidence

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for the non- 3 | P a g e deduction of TDS under Section 194 in the case of such kind of assessees. Under the Income Tax Act, computation of total income is made under the various heads of income, viz :- i. Salary ii. Income from house property iii. Profits and gains

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 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 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

capital gains from the sale of said property, assessee claimed deduction u/s 54EC for investment in NHAI Bond of INR 50 Lakhs and further claimed deduction of INR 1,90,86,224/- u/s 54F of the Act proportionately out of total cost of acquisition of new house property for INR 2,10,19,420/-. The AO disallowed

SH. AROON KUMAR SINHA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Aroon Kumar Sinha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1, Army Office Enclave, Ward-1(1), Laxmipur Po, Umedpur, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aidps7458R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 Order

capital gains amounting to Rs. 53,32,900/- after adopting sale consideration as Rs.60.50 lakhs than that declared of Rs.60.26 lakhs, and, thereafter, rejected his claim of section 54 deduction (originally raised) and latter on sought under section 54F of the Act; for want of a revised return, in light of Goetze India

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains of business or profession\".\nSince the appellant's claim relates to salary payments, which are for the purpose of\nrunning the business, the disallowance does not stand. There is no evidence to suggest\nthat the expenditure was personal or capital

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

Capital Finance Ltd., Bajaj Finserv and Fullerton India Ltd. 3.1. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the assessee relying upon various case laws in his support contending that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made in the case of the assessee without treating the assessee as assessee in default

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance u/s 80 IA, the same\nis taxed without any real income. Ld. AR thus, requests that deduction\nu/s 80IA of the Act on these items of income deserves to be allowed.\n11. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of\nthe lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has passed a reasoned\norder wherein items on which

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and M/s Magma Finance Ltd.. 3.2. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the assessee relying upon various case laws in her support contending that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made in the case of the assessee without treating the assessee as assessee in default

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and M/s Magma Finance Ltd.. 3.2. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the assessee relying upon various case laws in her support contending that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made in the case of the assessee without treating the assessee as assessee in default

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

gains of business or profession". Further, section 56 of the Income-tax Act has also been amended to provide that any compensation received or receivable by any person, whether in the nature of revenue or capital, in connection with the 4 Puran Singh Negi termination or the modification of the terms and conditions of any contract relating to his employment

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

gains and on an adhoc basis of 25% considered it as an Income of the appellant. This is an alleged violation of judicial discipline by the AO. Keeping in view that the amount of Rs 30,18,797 has been wrongly added as income, the addition made is hereby deleted and the ground allowed to the appellant. 7. Ground