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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed

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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed

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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed

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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed

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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed

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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have processed

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

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

13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act for relevant assessment years. There is no dispute on the aspect that the TDS statement was filed under Section 200A of the Act and the respondent had also issued the intimation under Section 200A of the Act, which means the respondents have 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

13 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. Section 148 of the Act). However, only because of a clerical mistake, the notice was wrongly issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. • In the aforesaid facts, the High Court held that this was an irregularity and procedural/ technical lapse which was curable under

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

13 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. Section 148 of the Act). However, only because of a clerical mistake, the notice was wrongly issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. • In the aforesaid facts, the High Court held that this was an irregularity and procedural/ technical lapse which was curable under

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

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

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

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD MAJRA, DEHRADUN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT, C C DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13 A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: AAAAD0247R (RESPONDENT) (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. D. S. Negi, CA Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADD/JCIT(A) Patna

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MIYANWALA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT, C C, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13 A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: AAAAD0247R (RESPONDENT) (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. D. S. Negi, CA Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADD/JCIT(A) Patna

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED RANIPOKHRI,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT, C C, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13 A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: AAAAD0247R (RESPONDENT) (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. D. S. Negi, CA Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADD/JCIT(A) Patna

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD BHOGPUR, DEHRADUN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT, C C DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

13 A, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand PAN: AAAAD0247R (RESPONDENT) (APPLICANT) Appellant by Sh. D. S. Negi, CA Respondent by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ADD/JCIT(A) Patna