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

section 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 the Assessing Officer adopted the valuation report of Govt. valuer dated 16.12.2016 wherein the property was valued at Rs.3,39,57,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains on sale of land. The Assessing Officer adopted 1/6th share of the assessee, namely Late Krishan Kant Chahal and computed the long

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

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Appeals of the Revenue's are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\nSd/-\n(MANISH AGARWAL)\nACCOUNΤΑΝΤ ΜΕMBER\nDate: 28

capital tools M.E. Ltd.\nunder the head \"Salaries\".\nThe assessee does not get the benefit of exclusionary clause 2 of sec.\n9(1)(vii) since this activity executing annual maintenance contract and\nconsultancy is not a mining activity and is purely technical service.\nSimilarly, these nature of activities are not covered under provisions of\nsec. 44BB and royalty in nature

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 54 of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9

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

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

capital gain amount of the plot sold on which exemption was claimed, therefore, balance amount of Rs.8,67,367/- had not been utilized for purchase and the exemption of Rs.8,67,367/- claimed by the Assessee was disallowed and added back to the income of the Assessee vide assessment order dated 21-03-2013. Consequent to the assessment order, penalty

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

9. Basically the issue that has been taken by the assessee in appeal is that income of Rs. 25,75,760/- was exempt from tax as it arose from the sale of agriculture land. It has been argued that the assessment order has been passed assuming incorrect facts and o. incorrect application of law and without giving sufficient opportunity

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. HALLIBURTON WORLDWIDE GMBH, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.250/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Halliburton Worldwide Gmbh 1St Floor, Ida, 46, E.C. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Dehradun- 248001,Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aadch1061Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act taxable u/s 115A of the Act, as opposed to the claim of the appellant that such receipts are in nature of royalty receipt in terms of Article 12 of Indo-Swiss DTAA. ……………… 5.1.3 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and case laws relied upon

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

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 )

9 lakhs on 13 June 2009, 1 October 2009 and 6 October 2009 respectively. However, the AO rejected the explanation, as house was not completed within the prescribed time. He took cost of the capital asset explained by the assessee of Rs. 402033/– and sale consideration as per deed was found to be ₹ 10 lakhs, consequently long-term capital gain