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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

2) of the Act. vii. As stated earlier, the assessee had sold the subject mentioned property jointly with her daughter in law and the daughter in law has offered capital gains of her 50% share in the property in her return of income, which has been accepted by the revenue. Hence, there is no reason for the Revenue to take

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

10,00,000 2,63,40,928 76,16,072 1/6 share of the assessee 12,69,345 Less: Deduction u/s 54F. 12,69,345 Taxable capital gains NIL Assessment is completed on total income of Rs.1,16,300/-… Issue notice demand after giving credit for prepaid taxes/TDS. (Gulshan Kumar) Income tax Officer Ward 1(4), Dehradun.” 8. The above

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

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

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

2,30,62,500/- on 27.08.2008 to M/s Trading Engineers International Ltd., New Delhi in which the share of the assessee was 1 /4th (i.e. 2622.5 sq. mtrs.). The AO was also informed that this land was declared as part of notified industrial area by the Central Excise vide notification no. 50 dated 10-06-2003. He therefore issued notice

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

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)

2(47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under Section 54 of the Act in respect of the long term 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SHREEVAAS INFRABUILD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Central Circle, Versus Shreevaas Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Mgf Metropolitan Dehradun. Mall, Saket, New Delhi. Pan: Aaocs9940A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Only Dispute In The Present Appeal Relates To The Deletion Of Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Capital Gain By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, The Facts Are, In Course Of Assessment Proceedings

capital gain at 2 | P a g e Rs.3,10,29,410/-. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being convinced with the submissions of the assessee that once, the DVO has determined the value of the property at a particular amount, which is less than the value determined by the stamp valuation authority, the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

2 crores to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra in the following manner: a. Cheque no. 049097 -Rs.50,00,000/- b. Cheque no.049098 - Rs.50,00,000- c. Cash - Rs.1,00,00,000- 6. The aforesaid two cheques were issued from Miyanwal, Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti by the asessee. 7. With regard to payment of Rs. 1 crore in cash, the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

2 crores to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra in the following manner: a. Cheque no. 049097 -Rs.50,00,000/- b. Cheque no.049098 - Rs.50,00,000- c. Cash - Rs.1,00,00,000- 6. The aforesaid two cheques were issued from Miyanwal, Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti by the asessee. 7. With regard to payment of Rs. 1 crore in cash, the assessee

DARIYAV SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

2. The identical issues are involved in both these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The only effective issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the Ld. PCIT was justified in assuming revision jurisdiction

SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. PRCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

2. The identical issues are involved in both these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The only effective issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the Ld. PCIT was justified in assuming revision jurisdiction

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

CAPITAL A/C\n630849.81 CLOSING STOCK\n49702307.00\nHDB FINANCIAL SERVICES\n(AS CERTIFIED BY PARTNERS)\n22500000.00\nHDFC LTD\n16000000.00 CASH IN HAND\n10789-16.00\nAXIS BANK\n2103284.16\nIDBI BANK\n2427220.00\nHDFC BANK\n50000.00\nUNSECURED LOAN\n100000.00\nIAS PER ANNEXURE B)\n9950000.00 KOTAK MAHINDRA\n\nCURRENT LIABILITIES\nLOANS & ADVANCES\n& PROVISIONS:\n1748596.48 CHEQUES IN HAND\n2250000.00\nSUNDRY CREDITORS\n28522350.00

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 proceedings under Section 271C of the Act, whether these attract the revision provisions under Section 263 of the Act or not. We note that

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

sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellate herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action adding short-term capital gains in its hands to the tune of Rs.2,07,10

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\nSd/-\n(MANISH AGARWAL)\nACCOUNΤΑΝΤ ΜΕMBER\nDate: 28

capital tools M.E. Ltd.\nunder the head \"Salaries\".\nThe assessee does not get the benefit of exclusionary clause 2 of sec.\n9(1)(vii) since this activity executing annual maintenance contract and\nconsultancy is not a mining activity and is purely technical service.\nSimilarly, these nature of activities are not covered under provisions of\nsec. 44BB and royalty in nature

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