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

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

50,00,000/- and under section 54B of a sum of Rs. 79,97,240/- (in dispute), (kindly see page 2 of AO order and page 7 of PB for Income Tax Return). 2. The learned AO, denied deduction under section 54B of the Act on the solitary basis that “assessee has not been able to substantiate agricultural activities being

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

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

Section 2 (a) defines appropriate Government as "In relation to the state government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that government or ANYLOCAL AUTHORITY, other than Cantonment Board or State Government. 4. That on the facts and in law the CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition made by learned AO of Rs. 1,50

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)

section 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law in assuming jurisdiction and passing the impugned order u/s 263, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the above grounds are purely legal and does

SAURABH AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

50,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 17. 10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11290060380 44,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. 'Ltd, 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291064949 20,00,000/- 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291070149 15,00,000/- 3. The Ld. AO thus observed that in these bank statements, huge amount aggregating to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in each of the assessees have been

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

50,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 17. 10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11290060380 44,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. 'Ltd, 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291064949 20,00,000/- 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291070149 15,00,000/- 3. The Ld. AO thus observed that in these bank statements, huge amount aggregating to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in each of the assessees have been

SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

50,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 17. 10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11290060380 44,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. 'Ltd, 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291064949 20,00,000/- 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291070149 15,00,000/- 3. The Ld. AO thus observed that in these bank statements, huge amount aggregating to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in each of the assessees have been

RUKMAN AGARWAL,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

50,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 17. 10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11290060380 44,00,000/- Siddheshwari Vyapaar Pvt. 'Ltd, 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291064949 20,00,000/- 18.10.2011 RTGS-ORBCH 11291070149 15,00,000/- 3. The Ld. AO thus observed that in these bank statements, huge amount aggregating to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in each of the assessees have been

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

CHANDRA KANT GUPTA,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As Ay: 2017-18 To Whether The Learned Commissioner Of India Tax (Appeals)(Nfac)

house belonging to the assessee and as such there is no 2 AY: 2017-18 burden of payment of rent. The assessee during his tenure in Government service was posted in various locations outside his home town. Accordingly, he had to maintain the dual establishments and also had to frequently withdraw cash from the bank account in which his salary

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.“

house property and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 took place in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 in M/s Ganga Realtors Group of cases. The assessee filed return of income on 10.07.2014 declaring income of Rs.4,72,526/-and the assessment u/s 153A was completed on 01.09.2014. Surrendered amount

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.“

house property and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 took place in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 26.04.2012 in M/s Ganga Realtors Group of cases. The assessee filed return of income on 10.07.2014 declaring income of Rs.4,72,526/-and the assessment u/s 153A was completed on 01.09.2014. Surrendered amount

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

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 the Hon'ble Commissioner

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

2. The identical issues are involved in both these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. The only effective issue to be decided in these appeals is as to whether the Ld. PCIT was justified in assuming revision jurisdiction