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

143 (2) was sent, the appellant/amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO. He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non existing entity on that day. In such proceedings an assessment order passed

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

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

2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Vs. ITO about passing of the order impugned only after approaching another Chartered Accountant and on coming to know belatedly about the passing of the order impugned, immediately the Assessee filed the present Appeal. Thus contended that the delay caused in filing the present Appeal is not intentional and sought for condoning the delay in filing

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

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

2 Shri Shiv Mandir Vs. ITO 3 Per contra, the ld. Department's Representative submitted that there is no reasonable cause to condone the delay, thus sought for dismissing the Appeal on delay in latches. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal

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

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

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

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)

Section 143(2) of the Act were not responded by the assessee. Ld. AO vide order dated 29.12.2023, made the addition of Rs.19,96,881/-. 3. Against assessment order dated 29.12.2023, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant/assessee preferred present application for condonation of delay

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 VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Delay condoned. This special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act referred to two reasons. The first reason was with regard to non-declaration of the account in ING Vysya Bank with a credit of Rs.70

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by applying the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act without appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2

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

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 the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing

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

WEATHERFORD ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

143(3) of the Act.] 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee has filed its adjournment letter today (20.03.2025) reading as under: 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.498/Del/2013; 1617/Del/2012; 5311/Del/2011; 5405/Del/2011 & 1138/Del/2012 “In this regard, it is respectfully submitted before your Honours that the Appellate is contemplating

WEATHERFORD ASIA PACIFIC PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

143(3) of the Act.] 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee has filed its adjournment letter today (20.03.2025) reading as under: 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.498/Del/2013; 1617/Del/2012; 5311/Del/2011; 5405/Del/2011 & 1138/Del/2012 “In this regard, it is respectfully submitted before your Honours that the Appellate is contemplating

WEATHERFORD ASIA PACIFIC PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and consequently, the Substantial

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2004-05 With Assessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit/Ddit, Weatherford Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., International Taxation, C/O- C & C Associates, 101 New Delhi Nilgiri Apartments, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Adit/Ddit, Vs. Weatherford Asia Pacific International Taxation, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi C/O- S.R. Batliboi & Co., Golf View, Corporate Tower-B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaacw1859Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Amit Arora, Adv. Department By Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr. Dr

143(3) of the Act.] 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges at the outset that the assessee has filed its adjournment letter today (20.03.2025) reading as under: 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.498/Del/2013; 1617/Del/2012; 5311/Del/2011; 5405/Del/2011 & 1138/Del/2012 “In this regard, it is respectfully submitted before your Honours that the Appellate is contemplating