KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ 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

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

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

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

gains, the land was deemed agricultural, not a capital asset, and thus not taxable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1

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)

142(1) of the Act specifically making enquiries particularly into the details of property purchased by the assessee and also calling for making for capital gains on sale of property. The assessee duly replied to the same furnishing all the requisite details together with claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The assessee also enclosed the copy of agreement

DARIYAV SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

142(1) of the Act dated 14/03/2016 sought to re-examine the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act, which was also duly replied by the assessee before the Ld. A.O. After being satisfied with the various replies given by the assessee, the Ld. A.O. proceeded to accept the claim of the assessee with regard to computation of capital

SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. PRCIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

142(1) of the Act dated 14/03/2016 sought to re-examine the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act, which was also duly replied by the assessee before the Ld. A.O. After being satisfied with the various replies given by the assessee, the Ld. A.O. proceeded to accept the claim of the assessee with regard to computation of capital

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

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

142(1), pointing out this fact and asking the assessee to show cause as to why the same should not be assessed as income from business. The assessee did not respond to this notice also. Therefore, the AO after noting that even in the sale deed dated 30.08.2008, it had been mentioned that land had been declared as industrial land

ANITA NAND CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain amounting to ₹ 1 597462. She did not file any return of income and therefore notice under section 148 of the income tax act was issued on 21/9/2015 which was returned by the postal authorities stating that assessee has left. Therefore another notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 13/10/2015 at the new address and duly

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

SHRI ADITYA 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. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1

SHRI ADITYA 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. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

142(1) alongwith\nquestionnaire were issued from time to time which were duly replied by\nthe assessee. After considering the submissions made alongwith\nrequisite documents and details filed by the assessee, total income of\nthe assessee stood assessed at INR 12,08,85,53,720/- vide order dated\n27.09.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n3. Against

SHRI VARDHAN GHILDIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vardhan Ghildiyal Vs. Ito, Ca Mayank Kumar Aggarwal Ward 1(2) (5) 286A 1St Floor, Garhi Cantt. Dehradun Dakra Road, Dehradun- 248001 Pan – (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) of the Act for filing the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The ld. AO observed that Rs. 1,64,552/- was taxable on account of salary, Rs. 55,433/- were added to the income of assessee under capital gain, Rs. 5,990/- under income from other sources, Rs. 3,50,000/- as agricultural income

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.

142(1) of the Act were also issued. In response to the notices, the representative of the assessee appeared in the assessment proceedings. An assessment order came to be passed on 28/03/2013 u/s 153C read with Sec. 143(3) of the Act by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.61,01,355/-. While making the above addition

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.

142(1) of the Act were also issued. In response to the notices, the representative of the assessee appeared in the assessment proceedings. An assessment order came to be passed on 28/03/2013 u/s 153C read with Sec. 143(3) of the Act by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.61,01,355/-. While making the above addition

ITO, WARD-1(3)(3), HARIDWAR vs. TOSH KUMAR JAIN, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

capital gains computed instead of the legal heir of the assessee. Hence, we hereby decline to interfere with the well reasoned and aptly outlined order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. Further, the Id. PCIT passed an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2021 revising the order passed u/s 148 dated 29.12.2017. From the reasons