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

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)

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 Page 6 of 12 Omwati vs. Pr. CIT made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision

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

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

12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section." 28. From the above provisions, it is clear that the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act is available where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from

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

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

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 )

section 54 of the income tax act against the eligible capital gain derived on sale of the house property. Now the brief question is whether the assessee was granted a proper opportunity of hearing or not. Admittedly, in the case of the assessee 148 notice was issued on account of cash deposited in her savings bank account without mentioning

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

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/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Dehradun, who vide his order dated 17-01-2012 in Appeal No. 107/DDN/2010-11 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee filed second appeal before

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/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Dehradun, who vide his order dated 17-01-2012 in Appeal No. 107/DDN/2010-11 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee filed second appeal before

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

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

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains. Due to his ignorance, the assessee could not decipher the financial impact of such this allowance. The assessee was completely not aware of the fact that such this allowance of the carry forward of the loss would disentitle Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. DY. CIT him in claiming the set off thereof in the subsequent assessment years. Hence

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains. Due to his ignorance, the assessee could not decipher the financial impact of such this allowance. The assessee was completely not aware of the fact that such this allowance of the carry forward of the loss would disentitle Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. DY. CIT him in claiming the set off thereof in the subsequent assessment years. Hence

GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both

capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income on 03.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,92,880/-. Sale of Jewellery: 4. The cash flow statement of the assessee furnished during the course of assessment proceedings revealed receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- on 24.06.2011 and Rs.2,74,000/- on 30.06.2011 on account of sale of jewellery