LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

2 AY: 2013-14 had sold one of the properties in assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year 2012-13. According to learned AR, the assessee had only invested in the property in the capacity of investor for the purpose of earning capital appreciation thereon. The intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of properties in the capacity

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

5 I.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2017 Valuation Cell of the department. The Valuation Officer, Meerut vide his report dated 16.12.2016 determined the cost of property at Rs.3,39,57,000/-.On behalf of the assessee written reply has been filed stating that the capital gains should be worked out as per Valuation Report of the Departmental- Valuer. Accordingly, the capital gains

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

section 43 (5) (e) of the b) Income Tax Act -1961 states that an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction which is chargeable to commodities transaction tax under chapter VII of the Finance Act, hence commodity transaction loss should be treated

LATE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY THROUGH LEAGAL HEIR MRS. ANJU CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1 , DEHRADUN

section 43 (5) (e) of the b) Income Tax Act -1961 states that an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction which is chargeable to commodities transaction tax under chapter VII of the Finance Act, hence commodity transaction loss should be treated

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),CIRCLE-I, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

capital assets to the extent of 90% of gross revenue. (ix) Whether the CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount received by the assessee on account of equipment lost in hole’ is infact the reimbursement of expenses and hence includible in the gross revenue for the purpose of computation of profits as per the provisions

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

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 and business profit as well. Therefore, the assessment framed by AO is hereby set aside on the issue of applicability of section 50C and to compute

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) of the Act. We are of the considered view that once it forms a part of an industrial state (supra), the same indeed deserves to be treated as a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. 8 Akram We thus see no reason in the assessee’s instant former substantive ground in principle which stands declined

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

5. Generally, where only one company is involved in change and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganisation of scheme of arrangement. In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or ‘amalgamation’ has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation

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

5. Generally, where only one company is involved in change and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganisation of scheme of arrangement. In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or ‘amalgamation’ has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation

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

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)

section 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction and passing the impugned order u/s 263, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the above grounds are purely legal and does

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

2 crores to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra in the following manner: a. Cheque no. 049097 -Rs.50,00,000/- b. Cheque no.049098 - Rs.50,00,000- c. Cash - Rs.1,00,00,000- 6. The aforesaid two cheques were issued from Miyanwal, Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti by the asessee. 7. With regard to payment of Rs. 1 crore in cash, the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

2 crores to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra in the following manner: a. Cheque no. 049097 -Rs.50,00,000/- b. Cheque no.049098 - Rs.50,00,000- c. Cash - Rs.1,00,00,000- 6. The aforesaid two cheques were issued from Miyanwal, Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti by the asessee. 7. With regard to payment of Rs. 1 crore in cash, the assessee

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 at 2 | P a g e Rs.3,10,29,410/-. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being convinced with the submissions of the assessee that once, the DVO has determined the value of the property at a particular amount, which is less than the value determined by the stamp valuation authority, the Assessing Officer

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

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

2 | P a g e report enclosed with the return found that the assessee did not deduct TDS on certain amounts to which the various provisions of Sections 193 & 194 were applicable. The Assessing Officer held that in relation to the following payments, the assessee has failed to deduct TDS :- i) Payment made to Mrs. Suchita Chougule (architect)-Rs.52

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 annexed per Annexure 6 supra. 7. The Appellant and the other 5 co-owners paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000 vide a settlement entered into with the children of Wife B, who had filed for share in immovable property sold by the Appellant vide a suit no.272 of 2009. Copy of the Settlement of claim arising