SH. SURINDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The orders passed are arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any at the time or before hearing of appeal.” 3.1 Almost similar grounds are raised except the quantum of addition in all years

SH.SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DEHRADUN, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The orders passed are arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any at the time or before hearing of appeal.” 3.1 Almost similar grounds are raised except the quantum of addition in all years

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC, , HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The orders passed are arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any at the time or before hearing of appeal.” 3.1 Almost similar grounds are raised except the quantum of addition in all years

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC-, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee’s appeals; ITA No

Bench: BEFORESHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The orders passed are arbitrary, against the provisions of law and facts of the case. 12. The appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any at the time or before hearing of appeal.” 3.1 Almost similar grounds are raised except the quantum of addition in all years

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

unexplained investment made in purchase of property. (Addition of Rs. 75,00,000/-) The assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has concealed particulars of income, hence the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act 1961. 4. Vide referred show cause dated 12.08.2016 and 14.10.2016 the assessee was asked to explain the transactions

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)

section 69 of the Act, is grossly arbitrary, totally erroneous and wholly uncalled for. 5. After considering the detailed submission of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “5. Decision I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. AO and the submission

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

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

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. However, before first appellate authority, assessee did furnish all the requisite details/supporting evidences in respect of share application money/share premium by way of additional evidences. From the details furnished, it is observed that the assessee had received share capital and share premium

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

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

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. However, before first appellate authority, assessee did furnish all the requisite details/supporting evidences in respect of share application money/share premium by way of additional evidences. From the details furnished, it is observed that the assessee had received share capital and share premium

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.

investment made in FDR as unexplained and further invoked the provision of 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

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.

investment made in FDR as unexplained and further invoked the provision of 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

SH. SURENDER KUMAR CHAWLA,RUDRAPUR vs. ACIT, CC- HALDWANI, HALDWANI

In the result, assessee's appeals; ITA No

68 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\nITA No.210, 62, 63, 74 to76 /DDN/2024\nSurender Kumar Chawla\n9. The learned assessing officer as also learned CIT(A) have erred in making\nand confirming addition of Rs35,00,000/- allegedly as unexplained\ninvestment u/s 69 on account of alleged payments made to Randhir Singh,\nRamveer Singh and Ganesh Singh

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SHRI SACHIN UPADHAYA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

investment. 4.1 Briefly the facts are, in course of search operation conducted in the residence of Sh. Mukesh Joshi at Noida, a receipt dated 13.07.2006 issued by one Sh. Sardar Raja Singh was seized which indicated that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.1 Crore. Alleging that the assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation with regard

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. MAHALAXMI BUILDWELL, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mahalaxmi Buildwell, Ward-1(1)(2), 118, Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Aazfm1835G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mayank Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits to the tune of Rs.3.16 crores; reading as under: “4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished the written submission and the following documents: 1. Bank Account Statement 2. Copy of sale deed of the property purchased 3. Balance Sheet of the firm as on 31.03.2015 4. Confirmation Statement

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

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