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

1(2), Dehradun (Order dated 25.03.2015) for computing the share of the Appellant in the Long- Term Capital Gains, arising on 'Sale of Co-ownership Land', as per the circle rate, by invoking the provisions of Section 50C

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

1) of the Act. iii. For the purpose of arriving at the capital gains in respect of sale of property in assessment year 2012-13, we find that the assessee had indeed considered the sale price as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority in terms of section 50C

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

1) dated 28.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We make it clear that today is the fifth hearing of the assessee’s instant appeal. We thus proceeded ex-parte. 4. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that

SHRI PRITPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property. F) The case law cited clearly lays out the law that where the addition was made by invoking provisions of section 50C without bringing any evidence on record that assessee actually received more amount than shown by it, penalty

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

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

50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s 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

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s 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

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s 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

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

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

50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s 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

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 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(1

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(1

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.

section 54, the entire amount of Rs.50 lakhs is liable for taxation. Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the l.T.Act,1961 is also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment. (Addition: Rs. 50,00,000/-)”. 4. As against the assessment order dated 28/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) vide order

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.

section 54, the entire amount of Rs.50 lakhs is liable for taxation. Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the l.T.Act,1961 is also initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment. (Addition: Rs. 50,00,000/-)”. 4. As against the assessment order dated 28/03/2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) vide order

HEMANT DALAKOTE,HALDWANI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), HALDWANI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

1) dated 27.09.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the alleged undisclosed short term capital gains of Rs.24