JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,650/- which is less than 10%. As per section 43CA difference\nto the extent of 10% is allowable. By Finance Act, 2018, the first\nproviso to Section 43CA(1) was inserted, and this proviso provided\nthat \"where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the\nauthority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty does not exceed\none

SH. AMIT KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Amit Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhagwati Trading & Ward-1(1)(1), Kiryana Store, Hospital Dehradun Road, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan :Aptpk4213M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahani, Ca Department By Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. Dr

demonetization period amounting to Rs.9,12,302/- as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the course

SHRI KAPIL KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Kapil Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 10, Lane No. 6B, Ward-1(1)(4), Ashirwad Enclave, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Cespk5488L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

demonetization; in his PPF account as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the latter

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE 111, DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD vs. M/S SURYANCHAL FURNITECH, BAHADRABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 82/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Jcit(Osd), Vs M/S Suryanchal Furnitech, Circle-111, F-104, Bahadrabad Industrial Dehradun-248001 Area, Haridwar-249402 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs3475L Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074074259(1) Dated 05.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

demonetization, where the AO neither rejected books of accounts or method of account adopted by the assessee and all purchase and sales were duly recorded and assessee has already declared cash sales in its books and explanation was already part of book results, there was no avenue for lower authorities to make addition under section 68

SIDHARTH BUILDWELL LLP,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, C- 1(2)(1), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansidharth Buildwell Llp Vs. Acit, 1, Darshiningate, Kanwali, Circle 1(2)(1), Kanwali B.O. Dehradun Haripuram, Dehradun Pan: Acufs6966M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Komal Sachev, Ca Revenue By: Sh. A.S.Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date Of Order : 27.02.2026 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.06.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.11.2017 Declaring Income At Rs. 95,08,920/- For Assessment Year 2017- 18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reasons “Higher Turnover Reported In Service Tax Return As Compared To Itr, Large Increase In Unsecured Loans During The Year, Real Estate Business

demonetization period”. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various persons. The assessee was asked to produce documentary

SH.KULBEER SINGH SAJWAN,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Kulbeer Singh Sajwan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lane No.2, Ashok Vihar, Ward-1(1)(1), Haridwar Byepass, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Avmps9347K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in the course of assessment framed on 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. We having given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and Revenue’s foregoing contentions. We find no reason to concur with either party’s stands in entirety. We make it clear first

KUNAL ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(5), DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

demonetization amounting to Rs.48,88,000/-, as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 2 Kunal Enterprises 4. Faced with this situation, our attention is drawn to the case records wherein the assessee appears to have withdrawn cash amounts to Rs.35,00,000/- on 20.10.2016, Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.10.2016 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 02.11.2016; followed

B.A. INTERNATIONAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(3)(1), HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income and confirmed the addition of INR 60 Lakhs u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the cash deposited during demonetization

SUMIT KAUR,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income and confirmed the addition of INR 60 Lakhs u/s 68 of the Act by holding that the cash deposited during demonetization

UTTRANCHAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

demonetization period. More so when appellant company was not engaged in any business activity during the year under consideration and need of cash withdrawal is not fully explained. Hence, taking a balance view I am inclined to partially accept explanation of the source of cash deposit in the bank account and therefore it is held that appellant company

ABHINAV RASTOGI,CHAMOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4)(4) SIRNAGAR, SIRNAGAR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Abhinav Rastogi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tcp Market Joshimath, Ward-1(4)(4), Chamoli, Srinagar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan :Ccrpr7932M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Mangla, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 69A; credit entries taken as unexplained cash credits of Rs.17,50,900/- to the extent of Rs. 11,39,922/- and the cash deposits in savings account of Rs.2,67,500/- herein; respectively, vide the following detailed discussion: “8.1 Cash deposits of Rs 2653400 – according to taxpayer it is out of cash available with him on 8/11/2016. Assessee avails