CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (AI, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

CIT(A), DEHRADUN vs. CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as 3 | P a g e ITA No.44 to 51/DDN/2023 to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay was that ‘due to the ignorance

NARENDER KUMAR JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

10,23,992/- may kindly be allowed.” 4. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also Ld. AR perused the record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay was that ‘due to the ignorance

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

10 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v CIT16 (“Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.”)]; (ii) The amalgamating company cannot thereafter be regarded as a "person" in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

10 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v CIT16 (“Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.”)]; (ii) The amalgamating company cannot thereafter be regarded as a "person" in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), DEHRADUN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED, STATION SUB AREA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 75 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 2 Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “2. Brief facts of the case: The appellant is a company established under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, with

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W01(1)(1), DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.104/Ddn/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Abhishek Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Near Town Area Office, Ward-1(1)(1), Doiwala, Distt Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand-248140. Pan-Alzpa7733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

10. That substantial justice gets dwarfed by the technical consideration if the delay in filing of the Appeal is not condoned. 11. That the delayed filing of the Appeal was not deliberate, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fide intention. 12.That justice can be done only if the matter is fought on merits

SH. SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sanjay Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 34 34Shankerpurhukumatpur Ward 1(2)(3), Dehradun, 248197, Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand Pan: Aaubpk4159P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

1(2)(3), Dehradun, 248197, Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand PAN: AAUBPK4159P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CA Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

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

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

SWAMI SATYAPRAKASHNAND SHIV MANDIR TRUST,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. AO (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in filing Form under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is pending adjudication before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. AO erred in by adding to the income of Rs.52.00 lacs inspite of the fact that Form 10 was filed on the 10.05.2022 within the due time of the return under Section 139(1

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

1) ,in holding that relief could not be sought for arrears of salary or receipt of salary in advance, when relief was claimed under Sec 10(10)C( on account of amendment in Law) 2.1 That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs 2,41,874, as the amount had not been received

GYANENDRA PANWAR,DEHRADUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shr Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.238/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Gyanendra Panwar, Assistant Director Of Income Nanda Devi Enclave, Badripur, Vs. Tax, Cpc,Ito,Ward 1(3)(4), Dehradun-248005, Uttarakhand. Aaykar Bhawan, 16, Civil Lines, Pan No.Adipp2853R Near Iit Roorkee, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1 GYANENDRA PANWAR my control, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The same are being explained below point wise. 4. Self-Illness: The appellant had undergone surgical process in February 2024, the treatment for which continued till March 2024. The relevant document in support of this treatment at district hospital, Dehradun is enclosed at Page No.25-28