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)

section 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction and passing the impugned order u/s 263, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the above grounds are purely legal and does

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

section 147 of the Act and ultimately, assessment orders were passed in respect of the co-owners of the land adding back various amounts of income on account of capital gain

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

section 147 of the Act and ultimately, assessment orders were passed in respect of the co-owners of the land adding back various amounts of income on account of capital gain

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

section 147 of the Act and ultimately, assessment orders were passed in respect of the co-owners of the land adding back various amounts of income on account of capital gain

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

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 to the interest

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

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 to the interest

SH. IRSHAD ILAHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(3), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

147 of the Act vide notice dated 18.10.2016. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed a return of income on 13.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,99,580/-. The AO has given a list of dates in para no.2 on page-2 of the assessment order, where, out of nine occasions, there was no compliance on eight occasions

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s expenditure claim for not having

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.

147 of the Act. The reassessment order was passed wherein income declared by the assessee is accepted by AO. Thereafter, based on the information provided by the AO himself, Ld. PCIT initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the ld. PCIT hold the assessment order as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, RISHIKESH

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hig-8, Rishilok Colony, Ward-1(4)(1), Nehru Marg, Rishikesh, Rishikesh Uttarakhand Pan :Bcepg9295E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.K. Juneja, Adv. Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

sections 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. It is noticed at the outset that the assessee herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing/adding his cost of improvement and transfer etc., to the tune of Rs.10,80,277/- thereby making

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

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains of business or profession\".\nSince the appellant's claim relates to salary payments, which are for the purpose of\nrunning the business, the disallowance does not stand. There is no evidence to suggest\nthat the expenditure was personal or capital in nature, which are the only grounds for\nthat disallowance under this section. Thus, the addition made