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

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains, hence the assessee had opted to carry forward the said loss to the next assessment year. Since while completing the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16, the Ld. A.O. was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim any short-term capital loss and hence he disallowed

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains, hence the assessee had opted to carry forward the said loss to the next assessment year. Since while completing the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16, the Ld. A.O. was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim any short-term capital loss and hence he disallowed

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

capital gain amount of the plot sold on which exemption was claimed, therefore, balance amount of Rs.8,67,367/- had not been utilized for purchase and the exemption of Rs.8,67,367/- claimed by the Assessee was disallowed

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

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 )

disallowing the source of investment of ₹ 8 19400 in the plot of land. c. That the Honourable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in not allowing exemption under section 54 for the residential house constructed by the appellant out of the sale proceeds of the residential house/loan from the bank within the time allowed under section 54 of the income

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

GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both

Capital gain made by Learned AO out of said sale proceeds was deleted by Hon’ble CIT (Appeals), hence the sale ipso facto becomes a genuine transaction. 3. That on the facts and in law the CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by learned AO of Rs 1,00,000 on account of disallowance

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

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted