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

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

money and share premium received as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income

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

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

money and share premium received as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added back to the income

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

section 68. It held- "15. The case of the A.O is that the assessee has collected the demonetized notes after 8.11.2016 in violation of the notifications issued by RBI. Accordingly, he has taken the view that the above said amounts represents unexplained money

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

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.

68 stating that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the party is not verifiable. However, if AO was of the view that sales have actually not been made to the above-mentioned party, then he should have rejected the books of accounts maintained by the appellant and should have added the whole sale declared by the appellant to this party including

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

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

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. As 6 | P a g e ITA No.3085/Del/2011& C.O. No.220/Del/2011 AY: 2007-08 regards, the balance amount of Rs.4,10,900/-, the assessee submitted that the said expenditure was incurred out of the cash withdrawals from the bank account. Being convinced with the submission of the assessee and evidences furnished, learned Commissioner

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

M/S. SHEEL CHAND AGROILS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HALDWANI

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

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. M/s Sheel Chand Agroils (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the additional ground raised by the assessee. 9. That in any case

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the CIT(A) decision of A.Y 2006-07. 16. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee has diverted its interest bearing

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 15. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition following the CIT(A) decision of A.Y 2006-07. 16. Now the aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. The ld DR vehemently argued that the assessee has diverted its interest bearing

RAJ BALA MITTAL,HARDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, HARDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him For Examination

money to the assessee. The assessee also furnished the bank statement of the lender wherein it was found that lender had advanced Rs.5,25,000/- from her overdraft account to the assessee by way of Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) fund transfer through regular banking channels. The learned Assessing Officer directed the assessee to produce the party before

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)

unexplained expenditure. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee claimed that these amounts were given by Shri Madan Lal who was financer of the partners of the assessee firm and help them in crucial time. The cash was given by him to the partners for transfer Rs. 20.00 lacs in his wife’s Smt. Vimla Devi bank account through RTGS

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed

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

unexplained income. The AO has not accepted the explanation that cash deposit is out of “cash in hand” available with appellant company on 08.11.2016. The AO has noted that there was no business activity during the year and therefore there was no need to withdraw cash deposits from the bank account of the appellant company. The AO has raised