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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

19,82,471/- and deleted the balance addition of INR\n6,68,650/- which is less than 10%. As per section 43CA difference\nto the extent of 10% is allowable. By Finance Act, 2018, the first\nproviso to Section 43CA(1) was inserted, and this proviso provided\nthat \"where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the\nauthority

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SHREEVAAS INFRABUILD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Central Circle, Versus Shreevaas Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Mgf Metropolitan Dehradun. Mall, Saket, New Delhi. Pan: Aaocs9940A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Only Dispute In The Present Appeal Relates To The Deletion Of Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Capital Gain By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, The Facts Are, In Course Of Assessment Proceedings

19,338/-, the stamp valuation authority has determined the value of property at Rs.4,37,32,664/- for stamp duty purpose. When the Assessing Officer proposed to substitute the declared sale consideration with the value determined by the stamp valuation authority for computing long term capital gain in terms of section

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.

19(8A) wherein additional income on account of capital gain was offered and due taxes were paid alongwith interest as per law. Ld.AR further submits that assessee had filed updated return much prior of any show cause notice issued by AO though the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny by issue of notice

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains. Due to his ignorance, the assessee could not decipher the financial impact of such this allowance. The assessee was completely not aware of the fact that such this allowance of the carry forward of the loss would disentitle Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. DY. CIT him in claiming the set off thereof in the subsequent assessment years. Hence

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains. Due to his ignorance, the assessee could not decipher the financial impact of such this allowance. The assessee was completely not aware of the fact that such this allowance of the carry forward of the loss would disentitle Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. DY. CIT him in claiming the set off thereof in the subsequent assessment years. Hence

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.

section 54, the entire amount of Rs.50 lakhs is liable for taxation. Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the l.T.Act,1961 is also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment. (Addition: Rs. 50,00,000/-)”. 4. As against the assessment order dated 28/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) vide order

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.

section 54, the entire amount of Rs.50 lakhs is liable for taxation. Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the l.T.Act,1961 is also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment. (Addition: Rs. 50,00,000/-)”. 4. As against the assessment order dated 28/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) vide order

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

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

capital gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received and the same has not been disputed, penalty was not justified and the same cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of income. H) In the present case, instead of sale of property, the property has been purchased. The Ld. AO has not disputed the actual amount paid

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) of the Act are invalid, as the proper course of action for the Assessing Officer was to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. However, learned

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) of the Act are invalid, as the proper course of action for the Assessing Officer was to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. However, learned

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) of the Act are invalid, as the proper course of action for the Assessing Officer was to initiate proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. However, learned

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 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 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

section 54F(1) are satisfied in the present case and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,90,86,224/- 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that following properties inherited by the appellant are not a "residential house as they are commercial properties

MEENAKSHI KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing] [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Meenakshi Kumar, Vs Pr.Cit, C/O-Matta Garg & Co., Dehradun. 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Pan-Agipk3345G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri N.S.Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr. Cit-1, Dehradun Dated 09.03.2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

19 pandemic like lockdown situation during that period, therefore, taking a liberal view, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby, condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 03.02.2016 declaring total income of INR 2,44,310/-. The case

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,,H.P. vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

19,404/- against interest income of Rs. 2,43,02,346/- for computing the profits and gains of business and eligible deduction u/s 801A of the appellant. As interest expenditure much exceeds the interest income, no interest amount was to be reduced in computing eligible deduction u/s 801A. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating