SHRI SHIV MANDIR PRABANDH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARS 1(2)(3) , DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Sanjay Awasthishiv Mandir Prabandh Samiti Vs Ito 135, Dharampur, Uttarakhand Ward-1(2)(3) Pan: Aayas3503P Dehradun, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

condone the delay of 488 days in filing the present Appeal. 6. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee having a temple, temple premises, Dharamshala and temple shops atDharampur, 3 Shri Shiv Mandir Vs. ITO Haridwar Road, Dehradun. The Assessee filed return of income at loss of Rs. 6,264/- which was processed

SHRI TIRUPATI BALAJI TRADERS,,NAINITAL vs. ACIT, NAINITAL

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders, Circle-3, 86 Ramsay Road, Vs. Nainital. Tallital, Nainital-263001, Uttarakhand. Pan-Acdfs8473Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv., Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, From The Perusal Of The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), It Is Seen That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Orders Ex-Parte Without Providing Sufficient Opportunities Of Being Heard To The Assessee, Thereby Confirming The Additions Made By The Ao. Regarding Delay In Filing Of Appeal, An Application Algonwith Affidavit Shri Tirupati Balaji Traders Vs. Acit Is Filed Before Us Wherein It Is Stated That The Firm Got Dissolved & Partner Did Not Access To It Portal. When Assessee Sought Advise From Counsel For Vsv, The Fact Of Passing Of Order By Cit(A) Came To The Notice. Under These Circumstances, Appeal Was Filed Delay. Ld. Ar Accordingly Prayed For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal & Further Prayed To Delete The Additions Made On Assumptions & Presumptions. 3. The Ld. Cit-Dr Supported The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

disallowance made by the AO in the assessment orders. It is true that assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents in support of the claim made in grounds of appeals. 5. Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Delay condoned. This special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act referred to two reasons. The first reason was with regard to non-declaration of the account in ING Vysya Bank with a credit of Rs.70

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)

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act without appreciating the facts that delay in furnishing of Audit Report is condonable

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

PURAN SINGH NEGI,HALDWANI vs. THE ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5 Puran Singh Negi 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return for the Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return declaring total income of Rs. 37,17,350/- (after availing deduction under Chapter VI (A) the revised return was selected

NEERAJ SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT ACIT CEN CIR , DDN , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Neeraj Singhal, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Central Circle, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Apzps7059D Assessee By : Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee is has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by making an addition based on an image recovered from the mobile phone of a third party i.e. Sh. Anuj Kumar Singhal. This action

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

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

disallowing deduction u/s 80IC/Chapter VI-A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP have failed to appreciate that to invoke the provisions of Section 92BA, existence of any 'arrangement' to ‘more than ordinary profits’ between the Appellant and its Associate Enterprise (“AE”) need to be established under the provisions

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

condonation petition giving the reasons for the delay. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 27.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 01.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 27.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 23.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 20.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 20.09.2023 and on 19.10.2023. On none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. The Ld. DR also placed on record

NAINITAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HALDWANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HALDWANI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

condonation petition giving the reasons for the delay. This appeal has been listed for hearing on 27.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 01.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 27.04.2022, 29.06.2022, 23.08.2022, 12.10.2022, 20.02.2023, 20.06.2023, 25.07.2023, 20.09.2023 and on 19.10.2023. On none of these occasions, there was any representation from the side of the assessee nor any adjournment request has been filed. The Ld. DR also placed on record