USHA GARG,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

condone the delay of 419 days in filing the present Appeals. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 17,08,710/- for Assessment Year

MR. RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeals and taken them for adjudication. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee requested that the Appeal No.39/DDN/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 be taken as a lead case as it contained entire argument put fourth by both the parties before the lower authorities, therefore, we first take up the appeal

MR. RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeals and taken them for adjudication. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee requested that the Appeal No.39/DDN/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 be taken as a lead case as it contained entire argument put fourth by both the parties before the lower authorities, therefore, we first take up the appeal

MR. RAKESH SHARMA,DELHI vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeals and taken them for adjudication. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee requested that the Appeal No.39/DDN/2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14 be taken as a lead case as it contained entire argument put fourth by both the parties before the lower authorities, therefore, we first take up the appeal

SHRI SHIV MANDIR PRABANDH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARS 1(2)(3) , DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthishiv Mandir Prabandh Samiti Vs Ito 135, Dharampur, Uttarakhand Ward-1(2)(3) Pan: Aayas3503P Dehradun, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

condone the delay of 488 days in filing the present Appeal. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee having a temple, temple premises, Dharamshala and temple shops atDharampur, 3 Shri Shiv Mandir Vs. ITO Haridwar Road, Dehradun. The Assessee filed return of income at loss of Rs. 6,264/- which was processed

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

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

RAJESH AGGARWAL ,DEHRADUN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay and admit the appeals of the assessee for adjudication. 2. As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. AY: 2011-12 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: That the Order passed

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

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

condonation petition giving the reasons for the delay. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 27.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 01.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 27.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 23.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 20.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 20.09.2023 and on 19.10.2023. On none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. The Ld. DR also placed on record

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

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

condonation petition giving the reasons for the delay. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 27.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 01.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 27.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 23.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 20.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 20.09.2023 and on 19.10.2023. On none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. The Ld. DR also placed on record