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 at Rs. 1,26,500/- business income at Rs. 50,70,340/- and income from other sources of Rs. 7,967/-, accordingly, passed assessment order on 26/06/2014 by computing the income of the assessee at Rs. 52,04,810/-. 14. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014, 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 at Rs. 1,26,500/- business income at Rs. 50,70,340/- and income from other sources of Rs. 7,967/-, accordingly, passed assessment order on 26/06/2014 by computing the income of the assessee at Rs. 52,04,810/-. 14. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/06/2014, 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

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

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

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

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

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:

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 and a reply has been submitted by the assesse on 05.02.2013 in the following manner: “with reference to para 4 of your

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)

2(47) of the Act, we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under 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-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase

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

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. Page 2 MDDA Sub-section 4 of section 43CA clearly states that the provisions

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

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 basis? 13) Whether

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

RISHI BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

section is bad in law and without jurisdiction & addition are also made without any incriminating material found during the course of search. 2. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.50 lacs which was made