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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section 40A

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section 40A

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section 40A

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

2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 17,57,000/- by invoking the provisions contained in section 40A

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of Rs.40,09,123/- made by invoking the provisions contained in section 40A (3) of the Act. 2 Reena

ANUJ KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Anuj Kumar Vs. Acit Dcit Central Circle, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Investigation Wing, Cross Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan: Aetpk0635A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Chatterjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

2 ANUJ KUMAR Vs. ACIT 3) The learned CIT(Appeals) disregarded the appellant's submissions regarding the non-applicability of the disallowance of Cash expenditure under Section 40A

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowances under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act and taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors are in dispute. 7. We have heard the Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. The section 145 of the Act reads as under: Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. “Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowances under section 14A and 40A(3) of the Act and taxability of non-genuine sundry creditors are in dispute. 7. We have heard the Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. The section 145 of the Act reads as under: Uttranchal Iron & Ispat Ltd. “Method of accounting. 145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 13 of the Act by following the decision for the A.Y 2006-07 without appreciating the facts brought on record for the instant year. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 40A

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 13 of the Act by following the decision for the A.Y 2006-07 without appreciating the facts brought on record for the instant year. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 40A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. THDC INDIA LIMITED, TEHRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 80IA of the Act 2. Addition on account of late payment 280,34,10,000/- surcharge leviable on outstanding debtors as on 31.03.2017 3. Disallowance of provision of gratuity u/s 7,38,312/- 40A

M.B. PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40a(ia) of the Act for non deduction of TDS. 7. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in denying the claim of depreciation and amortization of Rs. 49,75,184/-. 8. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing

SAHKUMBARI ASSOCIATES,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.261/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sahkumbari Associates, Acit Vs. C/O Matta Garg & Co., Circle-2, 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Pan No. Aagas1127F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2) was issued on 28.08.2015 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 19.12.2016 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.Nil. However, the Assessing Officer determined the loss of the assessee at Rs.30,74,520/- as against returned loss of Rs.1,02,88,590/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance

NEERAJ SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT ACIT CEN CIR , DDN , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

2) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact by confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Imposed by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessment being carried out under Section 40A(3). The addition was made solely because the appellant did not provide an explanation

SOBAN SINGH,DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Soban Singh, Vs Dcit Anand Nagar, Balawala Circle-1(1)(1) Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Djfps8212B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Abhinav Vijh, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363960 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. From The Perusal Of The Table Reproduced At Page 12 Of Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Containing The Party-Wise Details Of Rent Paid During The Previous Year, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Paid Rent To Total Six Parties In Cash Every Month & The Payment Made To Each Individual Owner Was Below The Maximum Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Of Inr 10,000/-. The Ao Has Wrongly Considered The Gross Amount Of Rent Paid To All The Landlords As In Violation Of Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. Since The Rent Paid To Each Individual Land Owner Was Below Inr 10,000/- On Each Occasion, Therefore, Provision Of Section 40A(3) Are Not Applicable. Accordingly, No Disallowance Is Required To Be Made U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. In The Light Of Above Facts, We Delete The Disallowance Made By The Ao. All The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Allowed.

2. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the table reproduced at page 12 of Ld. CIT(A)’s order containing the party-wise details of rent paid during the previous year, it is observed that assessee had paid rent to total Six parties in cash every

KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kumaon Brick Field, Ward-Khatima C./O- Adv. N.R. Goel, 32 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Afqpa1977B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

2. The Revenue next seeks to buttress the point that the learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the assesseee’s cash payments under section 40A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. STONEFIELD CONSTRUCTION, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

40A(3) of the Act, the other additions/disallowances were challenged. Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions/disallowance made and further, accepted the contention of the assessee that the additional income offered at INR 3.89 crores was business income as against unexplained money u/s 69A held

SHIV DAYAL GUPTA AGENCIES P.LTD,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shiv Dayal Gupta Agencies P. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 599, Badrinath Marg, Kotdwae, Circle-1(4)(1), Dehradun Rishikesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccs8810R

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act could not be invoked in the instant case as interest paid cannot be treated as excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, we direct the ld AO to delete the disallowance