MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANSI JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MEENA JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

MANAV JOHAR,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,13,440/- and agricultural income of Rs. 46,92,034/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). A search and seizure operation was conducted

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 54F of the Act in respect of reinvestment made in new house property. This action of learned Assessing Officer was upheld by learned CIT(A). 3 AY: 2013-14 5. It would be relevant to understand the behavior of the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of the properties, which could be understood from the following table

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 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 & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

section 54F(1) are satisfied in the present case and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,90,86,224/- 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that following properties inherited by the appellant are not a "residential house as they are commercial properties

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

House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 26,383/- Income from other sources Rs. 12,388/- Taxable Income Rs. 35,81,330/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before

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

House Property income Rs. 1,37,980/- Business Income Rs. 34,04,580/- Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 26,383/- Income from other sources Rs. 12,388/- Taxable Income Rs. 35,81,330/- 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014 passed u/s 143(3)/153Ac(1)(b)/254 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before

SHRI GANGA RAM ADWANI,RISHIKESH vs. DCIT, RISHIKESH

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year 2008-09

10. From the above documents / statements, it was found that land measuring 0.5480 hect. situated at Jwalapur, Hardwar known as farm house land was sold by Ashwani Mittal & Sons (HUF), which was purchased vide deed dated 07.04.2007, jointly by Shri Ganga Ram Adwani, the assessee and Shri Sunil Agarwal S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan, R/o Mohalla-Mayana, Kankhal, Haridwar (having

DEEPAK MITTAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi]

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) has been carried out in the business and residential premises of the Rama/Shakumbari group of cases of Moradabad on 22.09.2011 and as a part of this group, the residential and official premises of the Mittal family and its concerns which were part

SH. DEEPAK MITTAL,UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Through Video Conferencing At New Delhi]

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) has been carried out in the business and residential premises of the Rama/Shakumbari group of cases of Moradabad on 22.09.2011 and as a part of this group, the residential and official premises of the Mittal family and its concerns which were part

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

House, Old RTO Road, Bhilwara (Rajasthan), PAN : AAPCS5792P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DR Respondent by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate Date of hearing: 24.11.2021 Date of order : 14.12.2021 ORDER PER V.P. RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against two separate orders of CIT(A) dated 27.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 arising from the assessment order passed

MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,DEHRADUN vs. DY.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: the date of agreement. In his reply AR of the assessee submitted that only Rs.14,00,415/- was received during the year and the assessee has inadvertently forgot to include this amount in its income. So, this may be considered as income from transfer of the above property. He furnished receipt of the above amount which is place on record. MDDA

property. He furnished receipt of the above amount which is place on record. Page 2 MDDA Sub-section 4 of section 43CA clearly states that the provisions of sub-section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by any mode other than cash on or before the date

GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both

house property income, 3 Gulshan Kumar business income from own business of civil construction work and share of profit from partnership firms, long term capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income on 03.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,92,880/-. Sale of Jewellery: 4. The cash flow statement of the assessee furnished during

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

10,250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made

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

house property. The return of income for A.Y.2010-11 was filed on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,80,610/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Omwati during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35,08,250/- and from the sale proceeds of the said

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

house property. The return of income for A.Y.2010-11 was filed on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,80,610/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Omwati during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35,08,250/- and from the sale proceeds of the said