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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

40A(3) of the Act. Further, as per AO, the assessee submitted that he had declared his business income on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act and hence the cash payments can't be disallowed. But, as per AO, no explanation with regard to the source of the expenditure could be submitted by the assessee. Further, the AO stated

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

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

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

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

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 292C of the Act would apply to his brother and not to the assessee. The ld AO referred to the statement given

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

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

7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the deletion of disallowance u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 8. Briefs facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 21,22,99,500/- to ICRI Research P Ltd, a party covered u/s 40A

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

7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the deletion of disallowance u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 8. Briefs facts relating to this issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 21,22,99,500/- to ICRI Research P Ltd, a party covered u/s 40A

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

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