SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

Section 263 on the basis of suspicions, surmises and conjectures. Shri Abhishek Joshi 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, since opportunity of being heard in person not considered and without hearing the Assessee the order

DR. VIRENDRA SWAROOP EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Dr. Virendra Swaroop Vs Acit Educational Foundation Central Circle 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur Dehradun Uttar Pradesh-208001 Pan-Aaajd0224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Shri Sumit Lal Chandanim, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur [“Pcit”] Passed U/S 12(Ab)(4)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“The Act”] Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12A Of The Act From Assessment Year 2023-24 & Onwards.

gains of the real estate business of sale, purchase and leasing activities can be termed as incidental to the attainment of trust's objectives and are in the nature of commercial activities carried out for purposes other than for the objects of the trust. Therefore, vide impugned order, ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration granted u/s 12A/12AA or 12AB

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

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 payment of Rs. 1 crore

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

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 payment of Rs. 1 crore

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)

3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds :- “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT. has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 which is bad in law inter alia for this reason that the reassessment order dated 21.03.2016 which is sought to be revised

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain on sale of\nsuch land.\n\nGround No. 3-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nwhether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,49,480/-\nmade by the AO on account of disallowance of the exempt agricultural\nincome claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that

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

capital gain by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly, the facts are, in course

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

3) r.ws 144(B) of the Act is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the AO failed to understand the nature of transaction, applicability of section 500 and to compute the long term 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

capital gains and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, the action of the Ld. PCIT invoking the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiries made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

capital gains and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, the action of the Ld. PCIT invoking the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiries made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) is of no assistance to the assesses. If the lands, in question, were not purchased for the purpose of agriculture, with an intention to hold them as a "capital asset", we do not find any merit in the contention of the assesses, that the said agricultural lands were excluded from the definition

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gains (section 50C) and\nother sources (section 56) arising out of transactions in immovable\nproperty, the higher of sale consideration or stamp duty value\nwas adopted. The difference was taxed as income both in the\nhands of the purchaser and the seller.\n\n16.2 It has been pointed out that the variation between stamp duty\nvalue and actual consideration

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

Capital gains v. Income from other sources. 7.1. Now, let us examine Section 11 and Section 40 to decide this controversy. Section 11 to 13 is a part of Chapter 3

SIDHIDATRI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sidhidatri Builders & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Developers, C/O- R Gupta & Ward-2(3), Associates, 1St Floor, Mid Dehradun Building, 88-Nehru Colony, Dehradun Pan: Acgfs8424G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Praveen Goyal, Self Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellate herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action adding short-term capital gains

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.

3. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee has taken as many as 13 grounds of appeal out of which, Ground of appeal No.7 is with respect to the action of ld. PCIT in invoking the provision of Explanation 2(a) of section 263 without appreciating the fact

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

3 of the paper book. The notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2016 title limited scrutiny’ categorically states that the issue of deduction claimed under the head capital gains

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

3,00,800/- by disallowing the cost of improvement to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only on the ground that, one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against the enquiry letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had provided