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

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 145(3) of the Act. The appeal was filed

GYANENDRA PANWAR,DEHRADUN vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shr Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.238/Ddn/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Gyanendra Panwar, Assistant Director Of Income Nanda Devi Enclave, Badripur, Vs. Tax, Cpc,Ito,Ward 1(3)(4), Dehradun-248005, Uttarakhand. Aaykar Bhawan, 16, Civil Lines, Pan No.Adipp2853R Near Iit Roorkee, Uttarakhand. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

34 to 37. Further, death certificate is enclosed on page no. 38. It was the mother’s insistence that the son of appellant was to be married of before she takes her last breath. 6. Marriage of Son: The appellant was too much occupied with the marriage preparations including selection of compatible girl for his son in order to fulfil

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

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

34,773/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 was charged u/s 234E while passing the order u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s 201(1A) electronically was never served upon the assessee. The CIT(A) has suo motu rejected the appeals on sole ground of late filing of appeal

ASTLEY CONSTRUCTION,DEHRADUN vs. ITO (TDS), DEHRADUN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

34,773/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 was charged u/s 234E while passing the order u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s 201(1A) electronically was never served upon the assessee. The CIT(A) has suo motu rejected the appeals on sole ground of late filing of appeal