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

5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40A

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

5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40A

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

5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40A

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

5 Purchase of land 01.12.2009 7,03,000 Cash Total 17,57,000 In this regard the assessee was asked to explain as to why he expenses incurred on account of purchase of material in cash of Rs. 1757000/- may not be disallowed by invoking the provisions of 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

section 40A (3) of the Act is wholly in applicable to the facts of the appellant since payments were covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and as such disallowance sustained is contrary to law and facts and hence untenable. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) of Income Tax has upheld the disallowance by disregarding the conduct

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.

disallowance of Cash expenditure under Section 40A(3), given that the assessee was offering income under Section 44AD of the IT Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not pertinent. Despite this, the learned CIT(Appeals) displayed overenthusiasm in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the stringent provisions of Section

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

5 lakh together with its source and also show caused as to why the said expenditure be not disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the said image was found from the mobile of assessee‟s brother at the time of search and hence, the presumption in terms of Section

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

5. That, the appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above as and when needs for doing so may arise.” 2.1 The sole substantial issue raised in this appeal is that whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of deduction made under section 80IB of the Income

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

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the book results cannot be disturbed based on the finding with respect to trading result of preceding year unless similar defects are not found in books of account of the impugned year. Hence, he reversed the finding of the AO on rejection of books of accounts. However, he sustained specific disallowances aggregating

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

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the book results cannot be disturbed based on the finding with respect to trading result of preceding year unless similar defects are not found in books of account of the impugned year. Hence, he reversed the finding of the AO on rejection of books of accounts. However, he sustained specific disallowances aggregating

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer before the Ld. CIT(A) in making disallowances/additions on the items not covered under limited scrutiny. The assessee also challenged the order of the Assessing Officer on merits of the disallowances made u/s 37(1) & 40A(3) of the Act. It is observed from

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 44DA of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in disallowing the cost of materials of Rs. 493,200/- on the ground that the expense could not be verified. 6. Without prejudice to above and in law and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred

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

5. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that he case did not warrant invocation of provisions of 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

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

5. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that he case did not warrant invocation of provisions of 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

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT-A) has sustained penalty contrary to facts and against law. 5. That the impugned order is bad in law and not in consonance with facts, and against the principles of natural justice.” 3. None appeared for the assessee even after the registry issued notices to the assessee. 4. Considering

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

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the borrowings made by the Assessee (both secured and unsecured loans) were utilised by the Assessee for the purpose of its business. This fact is not in dispute before us at all. The only issue in dispute is whether the interest paid @18% by the Assessee on unsecured loans received