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

Capital gains v. Income from other sources. 7.1. Now, let us examine Section 11 and Section 40 to decide this

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

section 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 the Assessing Officer adopted the valuation report of Govt. valuer dated 16.12.2016 wherein the property was valued at Rs.3,39,57,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains on sale of land. The Assessing Officer adopted 1/6th share of the assessee, namely Late Krishan Kant Chahal and computed the long

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains made in the house property. 10. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find that since there is no finding given by learned Assessing Officer in his assessment order with regard to examination of quantum of deduction under section 54F, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this issue only for the limited extent

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

Section 263 on the basis of suspicions, surmises and conjectures. Shri Abhishek Joshi 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, since opportunity of being heard in person not considered and without hearing the Assessee the order

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)

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 of a new asset/residential house. 26. The appeals are, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned judgments

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

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

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) is of no assistance to the assesses. If the lands, in question, were not purchased for the purpose of agriculture, with an intention to hold them as a "capital asset", we do not find any merit in the contention of the assesses, that the said agricultural lands were excluded from the definition

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

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

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

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

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 have been identified for examination. Admittedly, no such adjustment to the returned income of the assessee was made with respect to deduction claimed by the assessee under the head capital gain. Admittedly, such deduction was allowed

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.

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

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

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

11 and the “search” in question had taken place on 26.04.2012. Meaning thereby, that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment as on the date of search, and, therefore, no addition could be made, except that based on the corresponding specific seized material in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212. We find in this

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

11 and the “search” in question had taken place on 26.04.2012. Meaning thereby, that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment as on the date of search, and, therefore, no addition could be made, except that based on the corresponding specific seized material in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212. We find in this

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

11 and the “search” in question had taken place on 26.04.2012. Meaning thereby, that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment as on the date of search, and, therefore, no addition could be made, except that based on the corresponding specific seized material in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212. We find in this