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

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 (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

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay was that ‘due to the ignorance of the assessee could not decipher for the financial impact, and not other of the fact that the allowance of the carry forward loss Narendra Kumar Jain

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

5. The Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in latches. The reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay was that ‘due to the ignorance of the assessee could not decipher for the financial impact, and not other of the fact that the allowance of the carry forward loss Narendra Kumar Jain

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

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

5. Generally, where only one company is involved in change and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganisation of scheme of arrangement. In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or ‘amalgamation’ has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation

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

5. Generally, where only one company is involved in change and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganisation of scheme of arrangement. In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or ‘amalgamation’ has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation

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

ABHISHEK AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W01(1)(1), DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.104/Ddn/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Abhishek Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, Near Town Area Office, Ward-1(1)(1), Doiwala, Distt Dehradun, Vs. Dehradun. Uttarakhand-248140. Pan-Alzpa7733L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

1 Mah LJ 503 to grant condonation for a delay of 425 days. The operative part of the observations of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court are the real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by the reason

SH. SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sanjay Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 34 34Shankerpurhukumatpur Ward 1(2)(3), Dehradun, 248197, Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand Pan: Aaubpk4159P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahini, Ca Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

1(2)(3), Dehradun, 248197, Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand PAN: AAUBPK4159P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CA Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

PRAVEEN SINGH RANA ,UTTARKASHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI (NFAC)

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthipraveen Singh Rana Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Nagar Palika Complex, (Appeals)/ National Faceless Neartiloth Pul, Barahat Appeal Centre, Range, Uttarakash Delhi Collectorate, Uttarakhand (Respondent) Pan: Aoopr7186N (Applicant) Appellant By Sh. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv Respondent By Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

1 Praveen Singh Rana vs. CIT(A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Praveen Singh Rana Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Nagar Palika Complex, (Appeals)/ National Faceless NearTiloth Pul, Barahat Appeal Centre, Range, Uttarakash Delhi Collectorate, Uttarakhand (RESPONDENT) PAN: AOOPR7186N (APPLICANT) Appellant

SH. NITIN SINGHAL,U.S.NAGAR vs. ITO, U.S.NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 08/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2015-16) Sh. Nitin Singhal Vs. Ito Matta Garg & Co. Chartered U.S. Nagar Accountants, 15, Astley Hall, Ward-2(2)(4), Bajpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Udhamsingh Nagar, Pan: Aqwps4877P Uttarakhand, 262401

condone the delay of 777 days in filing the present Appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case are that, return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 5,37,830/-. An addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- was made in original order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) passed