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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under Section 200A of the Act, when they have processed the application for TDS under Section 200A, no late fee can be imposed under Section 234E. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court feels that the impugned orders

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

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

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

JASPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD1(1)(2) DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 1444B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO Consequent to the assessment order an order of penalty also came to be passed on 26/08/2024 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order and order of penalty, Assessee preferred two Appeals before

JASPAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 1444B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO Consequent to the assessment order an order of penalty also came to be passed on 26/08/2024 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order and order of penalty, Assessee preferred two Appeals before

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

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)

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 on the 10.05.2022 within the due time of the return under Section 139(1

SLO AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Slo Automobiles Private Dy. Cit, Limited, Circle-2, Dehradun. 108-Haridwar Road, Vs. Dehradun-248001. Pan-Aancs8160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 197 days in filing the present Appeal. SLO Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 6,46,975/- after adjusting the loans of earlier years, NIL taxable income has been reported. During the course of survey conducted by the Commercial

NANDAN SINGH,PITHORAGARH vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20 Nandan Singh, Vs. Cit(Appeals)/National Payya Pauri, Faceless Appeal Pithoragarh Cemtre(Nfac) Assessment Uttarakhand Centre, Pan No. Bfaps4805M Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) dated 20.11.2023 and notice dated 22.12.2023 under Section 143(2) of the Act were not responded by the assessee. Ld. AO vide order dated 29.12.2023, made the addition of Rs.19,96,881/-. 3. Against assessment order dated 29.12.2023, appellant/assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant/assessee preferred present

GUNJAN JAISWAL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), HALDWANI

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequent to the said assessment order, an order of penalty also came to be passed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on 21/09/2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order as well as order