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

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)

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 Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. JCIT, Panchkula erred in dismissing

SHRI ASHWANI GARG,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), HARDWAR, HARDWAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Ashwani Garg, Vs. Ito, Plot No. 106-106A, Sector- Ward-1(3)(1), 6A, Sidcul, Haridwar, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Alcpg7518A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted and taken up for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in upholding the addition of Rs 21,90,500/- made under section

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

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

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

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. ITA Nos. 03 & 24/DDN/2022 17 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench

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

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. ITA Nos. 03 & 24/DDN/2022 17 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench

UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (E), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act, 1974, with duties and functions of prevention and control of pollution in terms of various pollution controlling acts, viz. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, etc. 4. The assessee has applied for exemption

UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act, 1974, with duties and functions of prevention and control of pollution in terms of various pollution controlling acts, viz. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, etc. 4. The assessee has applied for exemption

UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (E), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act, 1974, with duties and functions of prevention and control of pollution in terms of various pollution controlling acts, viz. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, etc. 4. The assessee has applied for exemption

UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (E), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act, 1974, with duties and functions of prevention and control of pollution in terms of various pollution controlling acts, viz. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, etc. 4. The assessee has applied for exemption

UTTARAKHAND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (E), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act, 1974, with duties and functions of prevention and control of pollution in terms of various pollution controlling acts, viz. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, etc. 4. The assessee has applied for exemption