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

1 April 2012; (vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact

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

1 April 2012; (vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact

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

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the other grounds, the Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 4 to 8 requires no adjudication

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

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the other grounds, the Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 4 to 8 requires no adjudication

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

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)

143(1) of the Act on 31.03.2023 determining total income at Rs.70,21,529/- denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 3. Against order dated 31.03.2023, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal. 5. Learned Authorized

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

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 u/s 143(1

NANDAN SINGH,PITHORAGARH vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Nandan Singh, Vs. Cit(Appeals)/National Payya Pauri, Faceless Appeal Pithoragarh Cemtre(Nfac) Assessment Uttarakhand Centre, Pan No. Bfaps4805M Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay of 30 days in filing appeal and appeal filed by the appellant/assessee are against order dated 09.08.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi arising out of order dated 29.12.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”) under Section

SLO AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Slo Automobiles Private Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-2, Dehradun. 108-Haridwar Road, Vs. Dehradun-248001. Pan-Aancs8160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 197 days in filing the present Appeal. SLO Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 6,46,975/- after adjusting the loans of earlier years, NIL taxable income has been reported. During the course of survey conducted by the Commercial

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

SH. NITIN SINGHAL,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, U.S.NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 08/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered U.S. Nagar Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Ward-2(2)(4), Bajpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Udhamsingh Nagar, Pan: Aqwps4877P Uttarakhand, 262401

condone the delay of 777 days in filing the present Appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case are that, return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 5,37,830/-. An addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- was made in original order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) passed

M/S SUNIL TRADERS,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, W-2(3)(3), ALMORA, ALMORA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Sunil Traders, Vs. Ito, M/S. 01, Parwati Inn, Ward-2(3)(3), Ranikhet, Uttarakhand- 263 Almora 651 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajas3203P Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2025

1) dated 31.03.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer, AO, Ward-2(3)(3), Almora (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only ground raised by the assessee is that the learned JCITA had erred in dismissing

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that the assessee and its counsel are placed at two different cities therefore, ITA No. 105 & 106/DDN/2024 the appeal could

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that the assessee and its counsel are placed at two different cities therefore, ITA No. 105 & 106/DDN/2024 the appeal could

MEENAKSHI KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Through Video Conferencing] [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Meenakshi Kumar, Vs Pr.Cit, C/O-Matta Garg & Co., Dehradun. 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001. Pan-Agipk3345G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri N.S.Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr. Cit-1, Dehradun Dated 09.03.2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

delay in filing the appeal is hereby, condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 03.02.2016 declaring total income of INR 2,44,310/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) accepting