KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

gains of business or profession",— xxxxxx (ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 : xxxxxx Provided further that

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

139(1) of the Act towards the capital gains. This clearly shows that AO has accepted the updated return filed by the assessee as valid return. It is further observed that in the notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act dated 14.03.2024, AO has not specified the charge as provided under clause

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

139 PAN-AVAPS 8130J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Mr. Prashant Kackar, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Poonam Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement 15/09/2023 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

capital gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received and the same has not been disputed, penalty was not justified and the same cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of income. H) In the present case, instead of sale of property, the property has been purchased. The Ld. AO has not disputed the actual amount paid

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Capital & Financial\nServices Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 119 ITD 266 (Delhi) have held that there\nwas uncertainty regarding ultimate collection of interest hence\nassessee was justified in not showing the notional interest income\nwhich did not actually materialized during the year under consideration.\nDelhi High Court in CIT v. Metropolitan Financier (P.) Ltd. [1981] 5\nTaxman 216 (Delhi) have held

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

NIRMAL SINGH,KASHIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

Appeal is partly allowed

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

1) dated 13.09.2021, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash 2 Nirmal Singh deposits

PARDEEP KUMAR WALIA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , 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] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

139(4) of the Act on 04.11.2023, declaring total income of INR 86,20,630/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act and corresponding capital gain was not declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. 3. In the assessment