RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the act. b. Disallowing the interest paid on such unsecured loans. 20. The aforesaid

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

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)

disallowed these twin assessees’ respective unexplained purchases, treated their cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained followed by section 115JB addition of Rs.4,92,326/- representing subsidy reserve credited

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

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)

disallowed these twin assessees’ respective unexplained purchases, treated their cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained followed by section 115JB addition of Rs.4,92,326/- representing subsidy reserve credited

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

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

disallowance of cash deposit of Rs 19,79,000 into bank during demonetization period since this amount has been deposited out of sale proceeds of jewelry and garments. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the addition made by the Ld. AO solely on the basis

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance.\nTherefore, respectfully following the judgment of Co-ordinate\nBench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2019-20, we hold that\nbank accounts of the employees belonged to them and the credits\nentries appearing therein are for the transactions carried out by the\nemployees themselves and the same cannot be held that carried

SAURAV MALIK,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

credited in his bank accounts as his undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which stood dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2025. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ground

PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

unexplained cash credit without deducting the amount paid during the year is erroneous and bad at law. 7. That in facts and circumstances of the case, that the addition o1Rs.13,74,000/- as sustained by the CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed

SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings

DCIT, CC, , DEHRADUN vs. SRIVAAS PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, RISHIKESH

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowed amounts of Rs.42,74,9900/- and Rs.6,74,250/- for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is before us. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceedings

DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN vs. V K AGARWAL & CO., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- Made On Account Of Unsecured Loan U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 As The Assessee Could Not Furnish/Produce The Confirmation Of Unsecured Loan From M/S Tirupati Investment. 3. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Be Set-A-Side & The Order Of The Ao Be Restored.

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act in the assessment order. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee produced the books of accounts and all the documents pertaining to the loan creditors to prove the three necessary ingredients of section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the learned

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. Therefore, cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department". The case

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

Appeal is partly allowed

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

unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act by the AO. 9.2 The appellant during the course of appeal proceedings has submitted that the AO lost sight of the fact that during the year, he had withdrawn the cash from his bank accounts and deposited/redeposited the same in the Banks. The appellant submitted that he had withdrawn total cash amounting

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

PRADEEP SHARDA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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.

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of INR 5,05,195/- and treating the agricultural income of INR 6,25,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and of INR 4,54,675/- as the addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash credit