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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

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

17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2015-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A

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

condoned.” 3. The Ld. CIT(A) without satisfying with the above reasons, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the grounds of delay in latches without adjudicating the appeal on merit vide impugned order dated 19/09/2020. Aggrieved by the order dated 19/09/2020 passed by CIT(A) on the following grounds:- 1. “That in facts and circumstance of the case

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

condoned.” 3. The Ld. CIT(A) without satisfying with the above reasons, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the grounds of delay in latches without adjudicating the appeal on merit vide impugned order dated 19/09/2020. Aggrieved by the order dated 19/09/2020 passed by CIT(A) on the following grounds:- 1. “That in facts and circumstance of the case

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

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)

17(2) of the Income Tax Rule is directory in nature and not mandatory. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Form under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is pending adjudication before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. AO erred in by adding to the income of Rs.52.00 lacs inspite of the fact that Form 10 was filed

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.

1(2) (3), Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: ABUPG3679G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/07/2025 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

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.

1(2) (3), Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: ABUPG3679G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/07/2025 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