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

condonation of delay afresh by speaking order. 6. Ground No. 4 to 14 are relating to admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A) and deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in land, unexplained cash credits and unexplained investment on account of loans and advances. 7. There was a search and seizure

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

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

23, 5. Treatment of Mother: The mother of the appellant, Smt. Savitri Panwar aged 90 years was suffering from cancer of ovary during the period and had undergone treatment in various hospitals from time to time. Unfortunately, she could not survive and passed away on 25.06.2025. In fact, she was even admitted to Himalayan Hospital, Cancer Research Institute, Jolly Grant

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

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