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) of the Act. We are of the considered view that once it forms a part of an industrial state (supra), the same indeed deserves to be treated as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. 8 Akram We thus see no reason in the assessee’s instant former substantive ground in principle which stands declined

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

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 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.8/DDN/2021 arises out of 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)

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 are quashed and set aside and the Authorities are directed

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

14)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the provision of section 50C are also not applicable. It is seen from the previous record that asessee has purchased land which is situated beside the roads. The assessee, in first, has never been agriculturist, the nature of the land sold is a residential plot. The assessee has purchased the land for the purpose

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

14,952/- available with the assessee as on the\nclosing hours on 08.11.2016 out of which 2,24,34,000/-were\ndeposited in SBN during the period of demonetization. He submits\nthat books of accounts of the assessee are duly audited, and no\ndefect was pointed out by AO. Ld. AR submits that monthly cash\nflow statement was also submitted

TARA DATTA,HALDWANI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), NANITAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

gains of Rs.1,52,37,360/- on sale/transfer of the relevant capital asset; in the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, learned Revenue could hardly dispute that there is no categorical finding either in the assessment order or in the lower appellate discussion as to how the assessee’s land could

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

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

capital gains arising therefrom amounting to Rs.52,14,139/- as well. The necessary prima facie inference which would arise in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits; although not reconciled or verified to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities, represent the on-money component in the foregoing sale deed involving total consideration of Rs.66

RAO FARMOOD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act on the date of Sale and therefore, the gain from the sale of the same was not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 54,51,665/- on this account is hereby deleted. Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 5 are allowed. ” which has not been

RAO FARMOOD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act on the date of Sale and therefore, the gain from the sale of the same was not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 54,51,665/- on this account is hereby deleted. Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 5 are allowed. ” which has not been

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/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/03/2017 treated the classification of losses

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/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/03/2017 treated the classification of losses

SHRI PURAN SINGH 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.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration