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.

money" by the appellant for purchase of a property. 7 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in: (a) Not appreciating that appellant had never negotiated, interacted or dealt with M-Nadeem Ahmad Khan. (b) Not providing to the appellant copy of statement of Mr Nadeem Ahmad Khan and copies of other material / evidences seized from

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

unexplained Investment as the entire money is appearing in the books of accounts of the company and received through proper banking challan from outside India. The addition thus made by the AO is hereby deleted and the ground allowed to the appellant.” 6. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds: “1 (i) On the facts

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

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

disallowance cancelled in A.Y 2006-07, correctly came to the conclusion that the transaction did not amount to diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue. 18. Ground No. 4 relates to the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Facts

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

disallowance cancelled in A.Y 2006-07, correctly came to the conclusion that the transaction did not amount to diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, we dismiss the Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue. 18. Ground No. 4 relates to the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Facts

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 addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- to the extent of Rs.57,97,400/- in the lower appellate discussion. 5 Om Prakash

M/S. NANAK CHAND ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

money be sent to his wife in Rajasthan, but there is no evidence of any such deposit by Madan Lal. No confirmation has been filed. The assessee has submitted that the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has never been claimed as an expenditure and therefore, there was no occasion of disallowance in this regard but it is observed that

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowing the cost of improvement to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only on the ground that, one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against the enquiry letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had provided all the documentary evidences which have

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article and the same is not recorded in the books of accounts. In\ninstant case, the transactions considered are recorded in the books of accounts as\nexpenditure and it is not the case of the AO that said transactions were not recorded in the\nbooks of accounts.\" The Ld. Cit (Appeal) has correctly noted

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

money in cash by the assessee from Sh. Rameshwar Havelia is proved beyond doubt by the orders of the Income Tax Department itself. Hence, the source for making payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra of Rs. 1 crore in cash stands clearly proved and explained. Hence, in our considered opinion, there cannot be any unexplained investment made by the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

money in cash by the assessee from Sh. Rameshwar Havelia is proved beyond doubt by the orders of the Income Tax Department itself. Hence, the source for making payment to Sh. Jagat Bhushan Batra of Rs. 1 crore in cash stands clearly proved and explained. Hence, in our considered opinion, there cannot be any unexplained investment made by the assessee

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

disallowed the agricultural income of Rs 9,85,000. 8.2 The appellant during the course of appeal proceedings has submitted that he owns a Farm land at Village Daha Farm, Khatima and that his return was also subject to scrutiny for the AY 2014-15, in which he had disclosed an agricultural income of 6,50,000. The appellant submitted

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. TRISHLA STEEL PVT LTD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

unexplained income u/s\n68 of the Act and made the addition to the total income of the assessee to the\nextent of Rs.44,98,000/-.\n\n4. Further, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has declared profit and sale of\nagricultural land with sale consideration of Rs.2,13,16,178/- and claimed\nexemption on the above said income

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