LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

15, Astley Hall, Dehradun PAN – AJZPB0140J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S.K. Matta, CA Respondent by Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2023 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 06.03.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT(A)], Dehradun, pertaining

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

15 wherein the DVO valued the property at Rs.3,39,57,000/-. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. Heard rival submissions. We find considerable merit in the submissions of the ld. Counsel. On perusal of the assessment order in the case of Smt. Krishna Nand Chahal, wife and legal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2018 for assessment year 2015-16 by DCIT, Central, Circle, Dehradun (who is the same officer assessing the assessee also), wherein, in para 7 of the said order, the Assessing Officer of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia had categorically stated that it is Sh. Rameshwar Havelia, who had made cash payment of Rs. 1 crore

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 )

15,000/- on 7/10/2008. The source of the above fund was partly explained by assessee from her husband and son, who are employees. Partly it was stated that she received rental income. However, no further evidences were produced, therefore, the learned assessing officer held that the source of investment in purchase of property is met out of undisclosed sources

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

15,31,250/-(5245 sq. mtr.) Rao Mohammad Akram iii. ½ share of assessee Mohd. Rs.57,65,625/-(2622.5 sq. mtr.) Akram iv. Profit earned Rs. 57,65,625/- 8. As already pointed no compliance has been made to the various opportunities for hearing that have been afforded to the assessee during the course of appeal. In the circumstances, the merits

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

10,250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

10 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v CIT16 (“Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.”)]; (ii) The amalgamating company cannot thereafter be regarded as a "person" in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

10 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v CIT16 (“Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.”)]; (ii) The amalgamating company cannot thereafter be regarded as a "person" in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment

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.

Gains, Copy of Sale and Purchase Deeds and the mode of payment of cost of improvements. 8. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act, where one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against his bill raised

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

15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. PAN No. AAGAS1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Sh. Kapil Goyal, Adv. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Sh. Pramod Verma, CIT DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 24.02.2023 28.02.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed

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

IMSI (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing not being article or thing specified in Thirteenth Schedule or commenced any operation specified in Fourteenth Schedule and undertakes substantial expansion during the period beginning on the 7 th day of January, 2003 and ending before

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 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)

section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-. (Out of total addition of Rs 7,00,000/-) made by Assessing Officer without doubting the source of cash deposit merely on the ground that denomination of the currency at the time of cash deposit (partly) does not tally with the denomination of currency

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

Capital Gain Rs. 26,383/- Income from other sources Rs. 12,388/- Taxable Income Rs. 35,81,330/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/03/2017 treated the classification of losses

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

Capital Gain Rs. 26,383/- Income from other sources Rs. 12,388/- Taxable Income Rs. 35,81,330/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/03/2017 treated the classification of losses

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.

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

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.

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there