DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with 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

DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADIM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with 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

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

153A of the Act are aimed at making de novo assessments and are not akin to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act to charge to tax only income escaping assessment in the original proceedings. You may therefore issue the refund claimed.” 3. The said explanation given by the assessee was not been found to be acceptable on the ground

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

b) r.w.s. 143(3); and, ITA No.115 & 116/DDN/2019 (for ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 AYs: 2010-11 & 2012-13) are directed against the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

b) r.w.s. 143(3); and, ITA No.115 & 116/DDN/2019 (for ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 AYs: 2010-11 & 2012-13) are directed against the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

b) r.w.s. 143(3); and, ITA No.115 & 116/DDN/2019 (for ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 AYs: 2010-11 & 2012-13) are directed against the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

b) r.w.s. 143(3); and, ITA No.115 & 116/DDN/2019 (for ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 ITA Nos.115 & 116/DDN/2016 AYs: 2010-11 & 2012-13) are directed against the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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 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