SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

SANJAY BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

1. That the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the assessment order and additions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

153A(1)(b) read with 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

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

153A(1)(b) r/w sec. 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 52,04,810/-. At the time of assessment, the claim of set-off of the losses from the future and option (F&O) at Rs. 41,04,315 was disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income

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

153A(1)(b) r/w sec. 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 52,04,810/-. At the time of assessment, the claim of set-off of the losses from the future and option (F&O) at Rs. 41,04,315 was disallowed and the income of the assessee was computed as under: House Property income

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:

153A of the Act are aimed at making de novo assessments and are not akin to proceedings under Section 147 of the Act to charge to tax only income escaping assessment in the original proceedings. You may therefore issue the refund claimed.” 3. The said explanation given by the assessee was not been found to be acceptable on the ground

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

1, 2 & 3, Revenue has raised the issue of admission of additional evidences by learned first appellate authority in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Having considered rival submissions, we find, though, before the first appellate authority, the assessee did furnish certain additional evidences, however, before admitting them, learned first appellate authority has provided full

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

1, 2 & 3, Revenue has raised the issue of admission of additional evidences by learned first appellate authority in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. Having considered rival submissions, we find, though, before the first appellate authority, the assessee did furnish certain additional evidences, however, before admitting them, learned first appellate authority has provided full