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

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

capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue

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

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

capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue

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 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.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

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.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

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

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

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

gains amounting to INR 3,018,797/- at an arbitrary rate of 25%. 4 4. The Ld. AO. has erred in laws and facts in considering the nature of transactions and holding head office transactions as undisclosed income under section 69 of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO. has erred in laws and facts by not considering the evidences

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Capital & Financial\nServices Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 119 ITD 266 (Delhi) have held that there\nwas uncertainty regarding ultimate collection of interest hence\nassessee was justified in not showing the notional interest income\nwhich did not actually materialized during the year under consideration.\nDelhi High Court in CIT v. Metropolitan Financier (P.) Ltd. [1981] 5\nTaxman 216 (Delhi) have held