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)

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 Page 6 of 12 Omwati vs. Pr. CIT made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision

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

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

Capital Gain and business profit as well, hence the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. Following judicial pronouncements are relevant to the facts of the case discussed and hence relied upon while adjudicating this case: (1) Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Meerut Roller Flour Mills

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) 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

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

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 under the heading "Income which does not form the part of the total income". Section 11 (1) provides that "subject to the provisions of Section

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.

section 263 which cannot be applied in the given facts of the case. He therefore, prayed for the cancellation of the revision order so passed u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Per contra, Ld. CIT DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld. PCIT and submits that AO has passed the assessment order without even mentioning or utter a single

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 in its hands to the tune of Rs.2

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.

Gains, Copy of Sale and Purchase Deeds and the mode of payment of cost of improvements. 8. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act, where one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against his bill raised

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

section 50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that

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

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

section 50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

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

section 50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that

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

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

section 50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s capital gains herein. 8. Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

capital gains. This clearly shows that AO has accepted the updated return filed by the assessee as valid return. It is further observed that in the notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act dated 14.03.2024, AO has not specified the charge as provided under clause (a) to (f) of sub-section (9) of section 270A