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.

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

DAVINDER KUMAR MAGO,PUNJABI BAGH vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

capital gain', secondly, the nil ALV or lower ALV as discussed in regard to above stated properties, in the above part of this order vide Paragraph No. 07 to 40, and non-initiation of penalty

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

capital gain of Rs 12,61,857/-, which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee also furnished the ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the books of M/s Sushil Financial Services P Ltd, Mumbai for trading of shares and commodities, which was accepted by the ld. AO. 4. Further as per Form

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gains on the above sale amounting to Rs. 9,50,000/- is added as undisclosed income of the assessee and penalty

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gains on the above sale amounting to Rs. 9,50,000/- is added as undisclosed income of the assessee and penalty

HARISH CHANDRA BATRA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain. Consequent to the addition, penalty of Rs.7,00,000 u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO. 3. We find

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019. 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 6. The assessee’s next twin quantum appeals ITA No. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 challenge both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computing his capital gains

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019. 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 6. The assessee’s next twin quantum appeals ITA No. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 challenge both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computing his capital gains

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019. 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 6. The assessee’s next twin quantum appeals ITA No. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 challenge both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computing his capital gains

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019. 3 | P a g e ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 6. The assessee’s next twin quantum appeals ITA No. 3944 & 3945/Del/2016 challenge both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computing his capital gains

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by Puran Verma and chottey lal Verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by Puran Verma and chottey lal Verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

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 to, or in place of, the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. 3. In this Agreement, the term "Indian

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

penalty was not justified. G) The case law cited clearly lays out the law that where the addition was made by invoking provisions of section 50C and assessee had disclosed details and documents in support of its computation of capital gain

PRATEEK JUYAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1090/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Prateek Juyal, Vs Dcit, 204, Silver Oak Apartments, Central Circle, Curzon Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Advpj2863Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessee Is Deriving Income From Business, Income From Capital Gains & Income From Other Sources. A Search U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Initiated & Took Place In The Business & Residential Premises Of The Assessee On 21.10.2010 In The Juyal Group Of Cases. A Notice U/S 153A(1)(A) Was Issued On 14.02.2012 For A.Y. 2011-12 & Was Served Upon The Assessee Requiring Him To Furnish The Return Of Income On Or Before 05.03.2012. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 08.02.2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.63,36,160/-. After The 2 Prateek Juyal Conclusion Of The Proceeding U/S 153A, Penalty U/S 271Aaa Has Been Levied On The Assessee.

capital gains and income from other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated and took place in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 21.10.2010 in the Juyal group of cases. A notice u/s 153A(1)(a) was issued on 14.02.2012 for A.Y. 2011-12 and was served upon the assessee requiring

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)

capital during the year. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed following grounds: “1. The Ld. AO has erred in laws and facts by computing the income of appellant at INR 104,546,281/- as against the loss reported by OJSC. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in laws

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act is grossly\nerroneous in as much as there has not been any under-reporting of\nincome by the Appellant.\nPage | 3\nITA No.69/DDN/2024\n5.\n6.\n7.\n8.\nThat on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the levy of\ninterest under section 234A of the Act is erroneous and illegal