LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 54F of the Act in respect of reinvestment made in new house property. This action of learned Assessing Officer was upheld by learned CIT(A). 3 AY: 2013-14 5. It would be relevant to understand the behavior of the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of the properties, which could be understood from the following table

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

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

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

143(3) rws 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 30.10.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-1(1), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred

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)

143(3)/147 dated 21-03-2016 was not maintainable and an invalid re-assessment cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15/03/2016. 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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15/03/2016. 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

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

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

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

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

3-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nwhether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,480/-\nmade by the AO on account of disallowance of the exempt agricultural\nincome claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the\nAO has clearly held in the assessment order that the assessee

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 gains (section 50C) and\nother sources (section 56) arising out of transactions in immovable\nproperty, the higher of sale consideration or stamp duty value\nwas adopted. The difference was taxed as income both in the\nhands of the purchaser and the seller.\n\n16.2 It has been pointed out that the variation between stamp duty\nvalue and actual consideration

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

143(3) r.ws 144(B) of the Act is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the AO failed to understand the nature of transaction, applicability of section 500 and to compute the long term capital gain

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

3 of the paper book. The notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2016 title limited scrutiny’ categorically states that the issue of deduction claimed under the head capital gains

SHRI SALIM ALI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 Salim Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Bapba5312H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Azad Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Azvpa8477F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shahzad Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Azopa9077A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessees By : Sh. Saurabh Gupta, Ca & Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023

capital gain. Against the assessment orders so passed, the assessees preferred appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the assessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 143(3

SHRI SHAHAZAD ALI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 Salim Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Bapba5312H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Azad Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Azvpa8477F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shahzad Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Azopa9077A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessees By : Sh. Saurabh Gupta, Ca & Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023

capital gain. Against the assessment orders so passed, the assessees preferred appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the assessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 143(3

SHRI AZAD ALI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 Salim Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Bapba5312H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Azad Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Azvpa8477F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shahzad Ali, Vill. Ajabpur Kalan, Versus Income-Tax Officer, Post Ajabpur, Dehradun. Ward 2(1), Dehradun. Pan:Azopa9077A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessees By : Sh. Saurabh Gupta, Ca & Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. A.S. Rana, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023

capital gain. Against the assessment orders so passed, the assessees preferred appeals before learned Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the assessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 143(3

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

3 Akram can be levied on the assessee for purchase and sale of agricultural land in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand, one of the other 02 persons who sold the same land in question in his appeal for the same assessment year and in my order in appeal no. 180/CIT(A)/DDN/2015-16 for the A.Y. 2009-10 dated

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.

3. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee stated that at the time of filing of return inadvertently, the profit from sale of capital assets was left to be included in the total income and when this fact has come to the knowledge of assessee, immediately the return was updated u/s 19(8A) wherein additional income on account of capital gain