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)

50,270/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with her husband Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Sanjay Kumar during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35,08,250/- and from the sale proceeds of the said land, the assessee purchased another Page 3 of 12 Omwati vs. Pr. CIT agricultural

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

50 lakhs each to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. b. Rs. 1 crore representing cash payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the cheque portion of Rs. 1 crore as it was not presented in the bank for encashment by the seller of the property, i.e., Jagat Bhushan Batra. 6. With regard to cash payment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

50 lakhs each to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. b. Rs. 1 crore representing cash payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the cheque portion of Rs. 1 crore as it was not presented in the bank for encashment by the seller of the property, i.e., Jagat Bhushan Batra. 6. With regard to cash payment

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

50% of share of 1,60,00,000/-) and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08/04/2014 for verification of correctness of the capital gain. In response to such notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 09/05/2014 showing the capital gains on sale of agricultural land

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

50% of share of 1,60,00,000/-) and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08/04/2014 for verification of correctness of the capital gain. In response to such notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 09/05/2014 showing the capital gains on sale of agricultural land

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

50 dated 10-06-2003. He therefore issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22.03.2016 which is stated to be duly served upon the assessee. Howerver the assessee did not respond to this notice. The AO thereafter issued a notice u/s 142(1), pointing out this fact and asking the assessee to show cause as to why the same

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in passing a non speaking order in respect of submission made to the CIT(A) when physical appeals were being heard by the Jurisdictional CIT(A). 3. That

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,50,95,314/-. While doing so, assessee had claimed a deduction under section

LAKHME CHAND ASWANI ,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), HALDWANI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi] [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Lakhme Chand Aswani, Vs Ito, Gajajoli, Uttar Bareilly Road, Ward-1(2), Haldwani, Utarakhand. Haldwani. Pan-Agnpa7702N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Kacker, Adv. Respondent By Smt.Mayank Prabha Tomar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 Order

50,720/- in respect of the Short Term Capital gain [“STCG”]. The AO also made addition of Rs.2,260/- being the dividend received by the assessee and treated by the AO not covered u/s 115 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

gain of ₹ 5 97967/– was computed and it was added to the total income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 19,16,367/– vide order dated 13/3/2014 passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of The Income Tax Act. 3 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing

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 VARDHAN GHILDIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vardhan Ghildiyal Vs. Ito, Ca Mayank Kumar Aggarwal Ward 1(2) (5) 286A 1St Floor, Garhi Cantt. Dehradun Dakra Road, Dehradun- 248001 Pan – (Appellant) (Respondent)

50,000/- as agricultural income, Rs. 13,380/- as dividend income and Long Term Capital Gain for equity shares. Apart from that Ld. AO noticed that during demonetization period a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- was deposited in specified bank notes in account no. 3018008800012252 held with the Punjab National Bank. 3. The assessee explained that this amount

RITA GOYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Smt. Rita Goyal, H. No. 28, Sahastradhara Ward-2(2), Road, Dehradun, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan :Ahypg4217C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Praveen Goyal, Self Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

50 lakhs in total involving as may sale instances. Learned Assessing Officer’s assessment discussion reads that he firstly rejected the assessee’s claim declaring capital gains than business income; and, therefore, invoked section

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