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

3,39,57,000 Less: Cost of acquisition 28,40,928 Commission Paid 25,00,000 Less: Expenses 2,10,00,000 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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains. Consequently, learned Assessing Officer had also denied the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act in respect of reinvestment made in new house property. This action of learned Assessing Officer was upheld by learned CIT(A). 3 AY: 2013-14 5. It would be relevant to understand the behavior of the assessee with regard

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

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 gains (section 50C) and\nother sources (section 56) arising out of transactions in immovable\nproperty, the higher of sale consideration or stamp duty value\nwas adopted. The difference was taxed as income both in the\nhands of the purchaser and the seller.\n\n16.2 It has been pointed out that the variation between stamp duty\nvalue and actual consideration

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)

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21/03/2016. This assessment was sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Ld. A.O. had not examined the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act made by the Ld. AO, thereby making reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial

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

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

capital gains and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, the action of the Ld. PCIT invoking the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiries made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

capital gains and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, the action of the Ld. PCIT invoking the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiries made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

10. I have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and I have already decided this issue i.e. whether tax 3 Akram can be levied on the assessee for purchase and sale of agricultural land in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand, one of the other 02 persons who sold the same land in question in his appeal

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

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

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

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

10,487/- under Section 54 of the Act. This is evident from the computation of total income placed at page No. 3 of the paper book. The notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2016 title limited scrutiny’ categorically states that the issue of deduction claimed under the head capital gains

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)

3 Puran Singh Negi 2.4 Sec 10.(10)C, applies to a scheme of voluntary separation. The ONE TIME SETTLEMENT was not voluntary. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO has erred in not allowing the total deduction of Rs 9,65,429/ allows by the Ld CIT(A) and restricting the relief

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.

3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee has taken as many as 13 grounds of appeal out of which, Ground of appeal No.7 is with respect to the action of ld. PCIT in invoking the provision of Explanation 2(a) of section 263 without appreciating the fact

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.

3,00,800/- by disallowing the cost of improvement to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only on the ground that, one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against the enquiry letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had provided

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)

section 69 of the Act, is grossly arbitrary, totally erroneous and wholly uncalled for. 5. After considering the detailed submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “5. Decision I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. AO and the submission