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

25-04-2017 declaring total income of Rs 34,680/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29-12-2018 determining total income at Rs 28,63,480/- after making addition of Rs 28,28,800/- on account of estimation of net profit of the assessee after rejection of books of accounts under section

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)

condone the delay in filing Form 10. 7. From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival submission, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2022-23 on 16.08.2022 wherein assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Trust had accumulated or set apart Rs.62,00,000/- for next year under Rule

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

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.” 25. The doctrine of merger results

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

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.” 25. The doctrine of merger results