NAUGAON BAHUUDESIYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,UTTARKASHI vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) citing sufficient cause. The case was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["250", "147", "144", "144B

GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, HALDWANI

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

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

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequent to the said assessment order, an order of penalty also came to be passed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on 21/09/2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order as well as order

GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), HALDWANI

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

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

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequent to the said assessment order, an order of penalty also came to be passed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on 21/09/2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order as well as order

ANNU KUMAR,ROORKEE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DERHADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Annu Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Hemant Arora & Co. Subhash Road, Llp 354-B, 30 Civil Lines, Dehradun, Roorkee Roorkee, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Bttpk3087N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavitra Arora, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 Order

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed for delay in latches on27/02/2025 vide order 2 Annu Kumar Vs. ITO impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27/02/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal

MOHAMMAD IRFAN,KASHIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), KASHIPUR

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrisanjay Awasthimohammad Irfan V Ito Mahuakheraganj, Near Water, Tank, S Ward 2(2)(1), Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) Kashipur, Uttarakhand 244713, Uttarakhand Pan:Adopi8997D Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026

Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,16,13,114/-/- as against returned Nil income filed by the Assesseeby making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06/12/2023, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/09/2025

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

144B of the Act and penalty order dated 05.09.2023 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of appellant/assessee was selected on basis of specific information flagged as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated through ITBA software under the head ‘NMS cases’. On verification of details

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

144B of the Act and penalty order dated 05.09.2023 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the case of appellant/assessee was selected on basis of specific information flagged as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated through ITBA software under the head ‘NMS cases’. On verification of details

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

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

144B of the Act is void-ab-initio as the assessment was undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in law by enhancing business profits of the taxable unit by shortfall in arm’s length price of Specified Domestic Transaction (“SDT”) rather than reducing the deduction claimed

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

144B of the Act is void-ab-initio as the assessment was undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity. 2. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. AO has erred in law by enhancing business profits of the taxable unit by shortfall in arm’s length price of Specified Domestic Transaction (“SDT”) rather than reducing the deduction claimed

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 in filing the appeal, therefore, the same is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 in terms of the reason recorded which are available at PB page 21 & 22. According to the same, assessee took

BALWINDER SINGH,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, KHATIMA

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022 for the assessment year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and has filed Form 2, vide acknowledgment number 870704361140225 issued by the Department and requested for the withdrawal of this appeal with immediate effect. 2.1. In this regard, the assessee’s letter dated 17.02.2025 is reproduced as under:- 3. In view

BALWINDER SINGH,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, W-2(3)(5), , KHATIMA

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022 for the assessment year under consideration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and has filed Form 2, vide acknowledgment number 870704361140225 issued by the Department and requested for the withdrawal of this appeal with immediate effect. 2.1. In this regard, the assessee’s letter dated 17.02.2025 is reproduced as under:- 3. In view