GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, HALDWANI

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty only when the Assessee’s bank account was attached. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay

GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), HALDWANI

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty only when the Assessee’s bank account was attached. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay

SANTRAM ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty were served physically. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department

ANKIT NAUTIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty was served on him. Thus, sought for condoning the delay. 4. For the reason stated in the application for condonation

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. We find that in this case also, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned NFAC by not condoning the delay

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. We find that in this case also, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned NFAC by not condoning the delay

HOTEL RUDRA CONTINENTAL,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. XIT(A) NFAC, HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.237/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Hotel Rudra Continental, Commissioner Of Income C/O Matta Garg & Co.Chartered Accountants, Vs. Tax (Appeals),Circle 2(1)(1), 15, Astely Hall,Dehradun. Income Tax Office, Pan No.Aadfh6007K Haldwani, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed in limine. It was averred by the Ld. AR that Item no.15 in Form 35 lists the reasons for delayed filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was mentioned by the Ld. AR that all tax matters of the assessee were being looked after

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing appeals and appeals before

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty order 05.09.2023, the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing appeals and appeals before

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(2)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

RISHABH DEV,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned

MAHADEV SHIKARI,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. ITO, RUDRAUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

condone 285 and 280 days’ delay, case-wise; respectively in filing of the assessee’s lower appeals instituted on 31st and 30th January, 2023 against the corresponding penalty

SH. MAHADEV SHIKARI,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

condone 285 and 280 days’ delay, case-wise; respectively in filing of the assessee’s lower appeals instituted on 31st and 30th January, 2023 against the corresponding penalty

BALWINDER SINGH,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, KHATIMA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty order u/s 270A of the Act dated 28.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee, vide his letter, dated 17.02.2025 stated that he has opted to settle the tax dispute of Rs.19,37,997/- relating to the tax arrears vide order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

BALWINDER SINGH,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, W-2(3)(5), , KHATIMA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty order u/s 270A of the Act dated 28.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the assessee, vide his letter, dated 17.02.2025 stated that he has opted to settle the tax dispute of Rs.19,37,997/- relating to the tax arrears vide order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B

WEATHERFORD ASIA PACIFIC PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

penalty in certain cases. Section 9 of the Act deals with cases, where the Act 3 of 2020 will not be applicable. 7. As observed, the assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration to be filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said