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)

250/- and consequently claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act in view of the fact that the assessee had purchased another agricultural land. The nil capital gain reported by the assessee was accepted by the Ld. A.O. in the re-assessment and concluded u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21/03/2016. This assessment was sought to be revised

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

4 of 10 ITA No.2187/Del/2018 & Sanjay Kumar & Dariyav Singh vs. Pr.CIT Rs.35,08,250/- and consequently claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act in view of the fact that the assessee had purchased another agricultural land for Rs.80 lacs. The nil capital gain reported by the assessee was accepted by the Ld. A.O. in the re-assessment and concluded

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

4 of 10 ITA No.2187/Del/2018 & Sanjay Kumar & Dariyav Singh vs. Pr.CIT Rs.35,08,250/- and consequently claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act in view of the fact that the assessee had purchased another agricultural land for Rs.80 lacs. The nil capital gain reported by the assessee was accepted by the Ld. A.O. in the re-assessment and concluded

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

Capital Gains arising on the sale of the said property. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal and further additional grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as under:- “1. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the learned

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

250/-(5245 sq. mtr.) Rao Mohammad Akram iii. ½ share of assessee Mohd. Rs.57,65,625/-(2622.5 sq. mtr.) Akram iv. Profit earned Rs. 57,65,625/- 8. As already pointed no compliance has been made to the various opportunities for hearing that have been afforded to the assessee during the course of appeal. In the circumstances, the merits

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

250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [\"the Act\"] arising from the assessment order dated\n21.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to\n assessment year 2017-18.\n\n2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm,\nengaged in the development of real estate and in construction\nactivities. The return

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.

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 and filed his return of income on 28.07.2022, declaring total income of INR 4

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.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [the 'Ld. CIT(A) , is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, illegal, without jurisdiction and hence, bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding the value/rate of Rs.5.75 lakhs per bigha as actual

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.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [the 'Ld. CIT(A) , is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, illegal, without jurisdiction and hence, bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding the value/rate of Rs.5.75 lakhs per bigha as actual

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.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [the 'Ld. CIT(A) , is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, illegal, with]out jurisdiction and hence, bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding the value/rate of Rs.5.75 lakhs per bigha

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.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [the 'Ld. CIT(A) , is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, illegal, with]out jurisdiction and hence, bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding the value/rate of Rs.5.75 lakhs per bigha

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.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [the 'Ld. CIT(A) , is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, illegal, with]out jurisdiction and hence, bad in law. 3 ITAs. 3398 & 3399/DDN/2015 Shri Aditya Verma, Dehradun. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding

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.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] by the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun [the 'Ld. CIT(A) , is erroneous, based on surmises and conjectures, illegal, with]out jurisdiction and hence, bad in law. 3 ITAs. 3398 & 3399/DDN/2015 Shri Aditya Verma, Dehradun. 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred law and on facts in upholding

RAO FARMOOD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun is based on conjectures, surmises, assuming incorrect facts and incorrect application of Law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A),Dehradun has mainly relied on his own findings in the case of Sh.Ramesh Chand in Appeal No. 180/CIT(A)/DDN/2014-15

RAO FARMOOD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun is based on conjectures, surmises, assuming incorrect facts and incorrect application of Law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A),Dehradun has mainly relied on his own findings in the case of Sh.Ramesh Chand in Appeal No. 180/CIT(A)/DDN/2014-15

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 16.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)- Noida-2. In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have held the receipts on account of IP Charges received from Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. amounting to Rs.77,66,43,479/- to be in the nature of “Royalty