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

USHA GARG,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

condone the delay of 419 days in filing the present Appeals. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 17

USHA GARG,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

condone the delay of 419 days in filing the present Appeals. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 and 29/12/2016 u/s 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 17

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

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

17-18 are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In respect of appeal in ITA No. 88/DDN/2024, we find that the same pertains to appeal filed against confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. We find that in this case also, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned NFAC by not condoning the delay

PANDITWARI SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing)

17-18 are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In respect of appeal in ITA No. 88/DDN/2024, we find that the same pertains to appeal filed against confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. We find that in this case also, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned NFAC by not condoning the delay

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)

17(2) of the Income Tax Rule is directory in nature and not mandatory. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form under Section

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

17. 2. At the outset, we find there is a delay of 2 days in filing the appeals by the assessee. Considering the small duration of delay, we are inclined to 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

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned

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

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

delay in filing statement of TDS. Therefore, from the introduction of the said Sub-Section it is clear that prior to the same, though Section 234E of the Act was introduced with effect from 01.07.2012, the Authorities were not empowered to impose the late fee while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act. 15. The learned