DIGVIJAY SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

unexplained investment made by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 1 crore in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Page 6 of 14 ITA Nos.2336 & 117/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 8. Since the search assessment order of Sh. Rameshwar Havelia for assessment year 2015-16 could not be placed on record by the assessee before

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act INR 30,000/- 3. Besides this, AO treated the income declared in the return of income filed at INR 3.89 crores on account of difference in survey during the course of search as unexplained investment

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee-company had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment in assessee's name in balance sheet of respective companies exercised revisionary powers and passed an order without giving an opportunity to assessee of being heard, invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 - High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. OM PRAKASH GUPTA, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 160/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Dcit, Vs Om Prakash Gupta, Central Circle, 19/A, Raj Vihar, Dehradun-2488001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abipg9323M Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2023-24, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Noida’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2025-26/1076723333(1) Dated 04.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

disallowance is found to be based on mere conjecture and surmises. Rejected accordingly. 5. Next comes the second substantive issue between the parties regarding correctness of the CIT(A)’s action partly upholding the assessment findings making unexplained investment

AJAY THAKUR ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1)1, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

unexplained investment addition of Rs.12 lakhs which has been held liable to be assessed under section 115BBE of the Act. He seeks to buttress the point on the quantification aspect thereof that some of the corresponding cheques had bever been encashed during the land transaction in question. 8. The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, is that there

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

unexplained cash credit inspite of the facts that the assessee did not fully discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that Ground No. 1 relating to invocation of provisions of section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act for short] is to be allowed

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

unexplained cash credit inspite of the facts that the assessee did not fully discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act." 6. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that Ground No. 1 relating to invocation of provisions of section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act for short] is to be allowed

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

investment in NHAI Bond of INR 50 Lakhs and further claimed deduction of INR 1,90,86,224/- u/s 54F of the Act proportionately out of total cost of acquisition of new house property for INR 2,10,19,420/-. The AO disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act by holding that assessee is having more than

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.

Investment, for which the assessee had not furnished PAN or address or confirmation from the lender. Accordingly, the learned AO concluded that since the assessee had not proved the three necessary ingredients of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), viz., identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness

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

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