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 )

property is beyond the prescribed time limit. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Bharti Misra [41 taxman.com 50] wherein it has been held that the deduction under section 54F cannot be denied for commencing the construction of new house before sale of original asset. He therefore submitted

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

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

housing scheme, constructing roads, drains, beautification, etc., filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 31.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.97,26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

housing scheme, constructing roads, drains, beautification, etc., filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 31.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.97,26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized

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

House land situated at Jwalapur, Haridwar was sold for total consideration of Rs. 2.06 8 Ganga Ram Adwani vs DCIT crores (including cash received from the purchasers over and above the amount mentioned in the registered deed dated 07.04.2007). From these facts, the AO held that it was evidently clear that the assessee had jointly purchased 0.5480 hectares land

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

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

section 27(1) Income Tax Act. 1961 categorically states that penalty would be livable if the assessee conceals particulars of his Income or furnishes Inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment of furnishing of inaccurate alone, the assessee does not ipso facto becomes liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only is the levy

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

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. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

11) Whether permission under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was obtained because the sale or intended sale was in favour of a non-agriculturist? If so, whether the sale or intended sale to such non- agriculturist was for non-agricultural or agricultural user? 12) Whether the land was sold on yardage or on acreage

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)

1) of the Act has to be that of the revisionary authority and cannot be at the behest of some other subordinate authority. In the facts of the present appeal, it is abundantly clear that the exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act is not due to any independent application of mind by the revisionary authority

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

1) of the Act. iii. For the purpose of arriving at the capital gains in respect of sale of property in assessment year 2012-13, we find that the assessee had indeed considered the sale price as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority in terms of section 50C of 6 AY: 2013-14 the Act as the actual sale consideration

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KOMA SINGHAL, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Sandeep Sanghal Central Circle, 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Dehradun Nursery, Kanwali Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.1 & 3/Ddn/2026 [In Ita No. 277/Ddn/2025] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sandeep Sanghal Vs Dcit 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Central Circle, Nursery, Kanwali Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Koma Singhal Central Circle, Village-Biasnehri, Haripur, Dehradun Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Bnips9413F Appellant Respondent

House No.22A, Lane No.-01, Ashirwad Enclave, Dehradun. Based on the noting on the said paper, AO alleged that assessee alongwith his wife Smt. Koma Singhal purchased two properties through two separate registered Sale Deeds for INR ITA Nos. 277 & 278/DDN/2025 & C.O.Nos.1 to 3/DDN/2026 3,10,90,000/- [INR 1,55,45,000/- each]. The said property was commercial

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. SANDEEP SANGHAL, KANWLI ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Sandeep Sanghal Central Circle, 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Dehradun Nursery, Kanwali Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.1 & 3/Ddn/2026 [In Ita No. 277/Ddn/2025] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sandeep Sanghal Vs Dcit 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Central Circle, Nursery, Kanwali Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Koma Singhal Central Circle, Village-Biasnehri, Haripur, Dehradun Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Bnips9413F Appellant Respondent

House No.22A, Lane No.-01, Ashirwad Enclave, Dehradun. Based on the noting on the said paper, AO alleged that assessee alongwith his wife Smt. Koma Singhal purchased two properties through two separate registered Sale Deeds for INR ITA Nos. 277 & 278/DDN/2025 & C.O.Nos.1 to 3/DDN/2026 3,10,90,000/- [INR 1,55,45,000/- each]. The said property was commercial

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

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