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

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the other grounds, the Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 4 to 8 requires no adjudication

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

9 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. existent company. The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum. The directions of the TPO were implemented by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before

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

9 SA Nos. 01 & 04/DDN/2022 Karam Safety Pvt. Ltd. existent company. The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum. The directions of the TPO were implemented by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before

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

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

9. That the merits in the case stand to be defeated if the condonation is not granted for delay in filing the Appeal. 10. That substantial justice gets dwarfed by the technical consideration if the delay in filing of the Appeal is not condoned. 11. That the delayed filing of the Appeal was not deliberate, or on account of culpable

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

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

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

delay in filing the appeal by 08 days is condoned. 3. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required no investigation, thus the same be admitted. The additional grounds of appeal are as under:- Ground No. 12 “Because

PAL MINERAL INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,HALDWANI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HALDWANI, HALDWANI

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

delay in filing the appeal by 08 days is condoned. 3. Ld.AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional grounds of appeal and contended containing that these additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and required no investigation, thus the same be admitted. The additional grounds of appeal are as under:- Ground No. 12 “Because

HASEEN,HARIDWAR vs. I T O ,WARD 1(3)(1),, HARIDWAR

In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Sanjay Awasthihaseen Vs Ito 38, Gadowali, Bahadarpur Jat, Ward 1(3)(1), Income Tax Haridwar-249404 Office, Yogi Bhawan, Industrial Pan: Aodph1131G Area, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Pankaj Goel, Adv Respondent By Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.04.2026 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), Income TAx Haridwar-249404 Office, Yogi Bhawan, Industrial PAN: AODPH1131G Area, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Pankaj Goel, adv Respondent by Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07.04.2026 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. Commissioner of Income

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

K L D A V COLLEGE,ROORKEE, HARIDWAR vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(4), ROORKEE, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable on reasonable cause and appellant's application for condonation u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act is yet to be decided by the competent authority. 6. That without prejudice to the above the ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made

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

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

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD BHOGPUR, DEHRADUN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT, C C DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

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

condone the delay of294, 202, 263, 324 and 324 days respectively in filing the captioned Appeals by the Assessee. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed by the A.O. on 04/03/2024, 12/02/2024, 26/02/2024, 04/03/2024 and 26/02/2024 holding that

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD SAHASPUR, DEHRADUN,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT, C C DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

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

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

condone the delay of294, 202, 263, 324 and 324 days respectively in filing the captioned Appeals by the Assessee. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed by the A.O. on 04/03/2024, 12/02/2024, 26/02/2024, 04/03/2024 and 26/02/2024 holding that