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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

nature of trade vis-à-vis property is to be accepted, then the capital asset which had been shown by the assessee as such, had to be first converted into stock-in-trade. On the said conversion, it would be liable for capital gains in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. Admittedly, no such case was made

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

nature of losses on the basis of documentary evidence and stated that in view of amended section 43(5) of the Act, the AO should allow the set off of losses incurred by the assessee from futures and options segment of stock market, if they are eligible transactions as referred to in proviso (d) to Section

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

nature of losses on the basis of documentary evidence and stated that in view of amended section 43(5) of the Act, the AO should allow the set off of losses incurred by the assessee from futures and options segment of stock market, if they are eligible transactions as referred to in proviso (d) to Section

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)

natural justice. 2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding as under:- That the assessee has not complied with the conditions enumerated • for claiming deduction u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. That the issue of said deduction has not been examined while • completing the reassessment

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

natural justice. 2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding as under:- • That the assessee has not complied with the conditions enumerated for claiming deduction u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. • That the issue of said deduction has not been examined while completing

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

natural justice. 2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding as under:- • That the assessee has not complied with the conditions enumerated for claiming deduction u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. • That the issue of said deduction has not been examined while completing

SHALINI SRIVASTAVA,HALDWANI vs. WARD 2(1)(1) HALDWANI/, HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year :2019-20] Shalini Srivastava Vs Ward-2(1)(1) Sheeshmahal, Opp. Haldwani Filter House, Uttarakhand Kathgodam, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263139 Pan-Apyps8567D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Kackar, Ca Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10096852 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income, Declaring Income From House Property Of Inr 51,754/- & Income Under The Head “Other Sources” Of Inr 17,56,736/-. The Total Income Of Inr 18,08,490/- Was Claimed As Set Off Against The Current Year Losses From Business & Profession Of Inr 31,04,998/- & Thus Total Income At Inr Nil Was Declared After Claiming Of Deduction Under Chapter Via Of Inr 1,56,918/-. The Return Of Income Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. Notices U/S 143(2) Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Not Complied With. In Absence Of Any Reply By The Assessee, Order Was Passed U/S 144 As Per Information Available & Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 13,32,38,065/- By Making Various Addition.

house property of INR 51,754/- and income under the head “other sources” of INR 17,56,736/-. The total income of INR 18,08,490/- was claimed as set off against the current year losses from business and profession of INR 31,04,998/- and thus total income at INR NIL was declared after claiming of deduction under Chapter

SUSHILA BISHT,DEHRADUN vs. ADD. CIT RANGE-02, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Sushila Bisht, Vs. Addl Cit, Ajabpur Kalan, C-100, Shanti Range-02, Vihar, Phase-1, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajepb0822E

natural justice. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not taking the Assessment Order of the Learned AO in consideration while passing the Appeal order, where there is no mention of unproven source of the funds given by the husband of the Loanee. Sushila Bisht 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

property yielding agricultural produce on the basis of its yield? At the risk of repetition, we may mention that not all of these factors would be present or absent in any case and that in each case one or more of those factors may make appearance and that the ultimate decision will have to be reached on a balanced consideration