BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

22 results for “disallowance”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,656Delhi2,300Chennai885Bangalore709Kolkata667Ahmedabad480Jaipur409Hyderabad354Pune218Chandigarh181Indore165Cochin145Rajkot141Visakhapatnam140Raipur131Amritsar127Surat123Nagpur99Lucknow97Panaji46Cuttack45Guwahati44Allahabad42Agra38Patna37Jodhpur36Calcutta22Dehradun22Jabalpur16SC16Ranchi11Varanasi9Karnataka7Kerala6Orissa3Himachal Pradesh2Telangana2Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 801A28Addition to Income22Section 6817Section 143(3)16Disallowance13Cash Deposit12Section 69A11Deduction10Demonetization9Business Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 92/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 145(3)Section 69A

disallowance." 7.8. In view of the facts of the case, it is evident that the appellant has duly substantiated its claim from the documentary evidences and also with the facts which the AO has not taken on record. AO has accepted the fact that the appellant is into business and thereby proceeded to calculate cash deposits

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 143(2)6
Section 142(1)5
ITA 188/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Dehradun
13 Mar 2026
AY 2017-18

deposit\nto the satisfaction of the AO as laid down in section 68 of the I.T. Act,\n1961 and the modus operandi of cash in hand as explained by the\nassessee has been found in contravention to the test human probability\nas discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs\nCIT

SAWINDER JEET SINGH KALER,NANITAL vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), , NANITAL

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Sawinder Jeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kaler, Ward-2(3)(1), Gol Ghar, Mallital, Nainital, Nainital Uttarakhand Pan :Alypk9431G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 69A

disallowing his agricultural income of Rs.9,85,000/- and cash deposits of Rs.15,15,490/-; respectively, upheld in the lower

CHERRIE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,ROORKEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

disallowance of cash deposit of Rs 19,79,000 into bank during demonetization period since this amount has been deposited

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

cash to the partners and asked that the money be sent to his wife in Rajasthan, but there is no evidence of any such deposit by Madan Lal. No confirmation has been filed. The assessee has submitted that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has never been claimed as an expenditure and therefore, there was no occasion of disallowance

SAURAV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Saurav Malik Vs Ito 100/2, Bell Road Clement Town 15A, Subhash Road, Near Hilton School, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248002 Pan-Bdypm6527J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The appellant has valid supporting documents, including housing loan interest certificates. The deductions should be allowed based on documentary evidence. 4. Ground 4: Bonafide Business Transactions- The appellant has conducted all transactions in the regular course of business.. Due to the perishable nature of milk, daily cash collections and deposits

TAKNOR JHALA FRUITS COLLECTION AND PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED,RISHIKESH, UTTRAKHAND vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA, CIT(A)-THREE, NOIDA AND ITO RISHIKESH

ITA 32/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harsil Gangotri Fruits Vs. Cit(A)-3, Processing & Marketing Pvt. Noida Ltd., Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aacch9436Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Taknor Jhala Fruits Collection Vs. Cit(A)-3 & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Noida Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aaect2878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 68Section 80

disallowed these twin assessees’ respective unexplained purchases, treated their cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained followed by section 115JB addition

HARSIL GANGOTRI FRUITS PROCESSING AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. CIT(A)-3, NOIDA, CIT(A) NOIDA AND ITO RISHIKESH

ITA 31/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harsil Gangotri Fruits Vs. Cit(A)-3, Processing & Marketing Pvt. Noida Ltd., Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aacch9436Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Taknor Jhala Fruits Collection Vs. Cit(A)-3 & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Noida Plot No. 89, Nirmal Bagh Aam Bagh, Visthapit Pashulok, Rishikesh, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aaect2878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 68Section 80

disallowed these twin assessees’ respective unexplained purchases, treated their cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained followed by section 115JB addition

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

cash withdrawals amounting to\nRs. 1,91,805/- were recognized as employee salaries. Further, the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has\nnot drawn any adverse inference regarding the amount of salary recorded in the\nappellant's books of accounts and the salary records maintained in the salary register.\nThis acknowledgment confirms the nature of these deposits as legitimate salary\npayments, duly recorded

SH.SUDESH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(2)(4), DEHRADUN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

cash deposits in the bank accounts. The assessee filed his explanation; however, the AO was not satisfied with the said explanation. Therefore, the AO treated the deposits of Rs.24,75,000/- in bank accounts as unexplained and taxed the same under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). Further, the AO disallowed

M/S. KVN AUTO ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO- 1(2), HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6446/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.6446/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2012-13) Kvn Auto Engineering (P). Ltd., Plot No. 62, Ramji Vihar, Near Transport Nagar, Haldwani, Uttarakhand ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadck-9080-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haldwani, Uttarakhand अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr (Through Vc) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 21/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.10.2016, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised In Appeal Is Ad Under:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (Through VC)
Section 68Section 69A

deposits in cash credit loan account. (iii) Ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed addition of Rs.40,000/- on account of alleged difference in loan account. (iv) Ground no. 6 & 7 of appeal are in respect of disallowance

PARTH SINGH PUNDIR,DEHRADUN vs. CIT APPEAL, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 80/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization u/s.69A of the IT Act, 1961. ii) Rs. 82,908/- on account of disallowance

PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 78/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Ward 1(4) (1), Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, 249201, Uttarakhand Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Pan: Aldpd9616P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 Order

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 28Section 68

disallowance of Rs. 36,05,530/- with a rider of presumptive rate of 8% of gross receipts of Rs. 3 Pushpa Devi vs. ITO 51,92,490/- working out to Rs. 4,15,399/- fall short of profit declared of Rs. 3,77,721/- by sustaining the addition of Rs. 37,678/-. As against the sustaining the said addition

BHANIYAWALA KISAAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHARADUN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 270A(10)(a)Section 271FSection 8Section 80ASection 80P

disallowed deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the assessee has not filed its income return and also not considered that the assessee is co- operative society. 4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred not considering Income Tax Return submitted during the assessment proceeding

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3927/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 13Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

deposit made with ICRI Research [P] Ltd is for non-business purpose. We are therefore of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A), relying upon similar disallowance cancelled in A.Y 2006-07, correctly came to the conclusion that the transaction did not amount to diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH (INDIA) SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4207/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 13Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

deposit made with ICRI Research [P] Ltd is for non-business purpose. We are therefore of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A), relying upon similar disallowance cancelled in A.Y 2006-07, correctly came to the conclusion that the transaction did not amount to diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

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

ITA 2215/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 68

disallowed these payments under section 40A(3) of the Act as there was no exceptional clause to make such payments in cash under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Keeping in view the above facts, the AO rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act and applied net profit

PRADEEP SHARDA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 223/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Pradeep Sharda Vs Acit 7, Inder Road, Dehradun Circle-1(2)(1) Uttarakhand -248001 Dehradun Pan-Adwps5692K Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Dehradun/10344/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 01.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Practicing Doctor & E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 2,16,70,906/- On 30.10.2017. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Additions Of Inr 15,84,870/- Comprising Of The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Of Inr 5,05,195/- & Treating The Agricultural Income Of Inr 6,25,000/- As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Of Inr 4,54,675/- As The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Cash Credit.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68Section 69A

cash credit. 3. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of INR 4,54,675/- made u/s 68 of the Act and confirmed the addition of INR 6,25,000/- made on account of agricultural income treated as undisclosed income and disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of INR 5,05,195/-. 4. Before

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,,H.P. vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 3925/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 801A

cash flow. 5. That the said non-allowance of netting off of interest is based on erroneous views, without properly considering, appreciating or rebutting material, explanations, submissions and case law placed before him. The said addition deserves to be deleted in toto. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court

M/S. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

ITA 3064/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 801A

cash flow. 5. That the said non-allowance of netting off of interest is based on erroneous views, without properly considering, appreciating or rebutting material, explanations, submissions and case law placed before him. The said addition deserves to be deleted in toto. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court