MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

13,16,178/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed long term\ncapital gain arisen from transfer of immovable property without\nappreciating the fact that the assessee has been failed to prove that the\nland in question sold was being used for agricultural purpose. The Id\nCIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that the status of the land

DR. VIRENDRA SWAROOP EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Dr. Virendra Swaroop Vs Acit Educational Foundation Central Circle 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur Dehradun Uttar Pradesh-208001 Pan-Aaajd0224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Shri Sumit Lal Chandanim, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur [“Pcit”] Passed U/S 12(Ab)(4)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“The Act”] Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12A Of The Act From Assessment Year 2023-24 & Onwards.

gains of the real estate business of sale, purchase and leasing activities can be termed as incidental to the attainment of trust's objectives and are in the nature of commercial activities carried out for purposes other than for the objects of the trust. Therefore, vide impugned order, ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration granted u/s 12A/12AA or 12AB

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 controversy. Section 11 to 13 is a part of Chapter 3

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

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

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

3 Kusum Kujwal It is clear from the fact of the case that the assessee has sold residential plot in square meter to different customers during the year under consideration. Therefore, even on sale of agricultural land by converting it into stock, the provision of capital assetwill apply. The matter of similar nature arose before the Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur

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 )

13 June 2009, 1 October 2009 and 6 October 2009 respectively. However, the AO rejected the explanation, as house was not completed within the prescribed time. He took cost of the capital asset explained by the assessee of Rs. 402033/– and sale consideration as per deed was found to be ₹ 10 lakhs, consequently long-term capital gain

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

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.

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

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

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending