SH. IRSHAD ILAHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(3), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Irshad Ilahi, Income Tax Officer, 96 Colli Camp, Turner Road, Ward-1(3), Clement Town, Dehradun, Vs Dehradun Uttarkhand-248001 Pan-Acmpi0814J Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and also dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no supporting documentary evidence was filed in support of the assessee’s claim that she was liable to only 1/6th of the Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale of the said property. 4. Aggrieved with the order

M/S UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by following days:- Sl.No. ITA No. Assessment CIT(A)’s AO’s order Delay in Years order dated filing the dated appeal 1. 21/DDN/2025

MS UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LITD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by following days:- Sl.No. ITA No. Assessment CIT(A)’s AO’s order Delay in Years order dated filing the dated appeal 1. 21/DDN/2025

M/S UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by following days:- Sl.No. ITA No. Assessment CIT(A)’s AO’s order Delay in Years order dated filing the dated appeal 1. 21/DDN/2025

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD. ,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W-1(1)(3), DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the different assessment orders pertaining to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2021-22 respectively. The appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by following days:- Sl.No. ITA No. Assessment CIT(A)’s AO’s order Delay in Years order dated filing the dated appeal 1. 21/DDN/2025

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated ITA Nos.178 & 179/Del/2024 14.03.2023 of the Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) under Sections 147/144 read with section 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 05.09.2023 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTDWAR

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated ITA Nos.178 & 179/Del/2024 14.03.2023 of the Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) under Sections 147/144 read with section 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 05.09.2023 under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed by ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 CHENNAI, Office of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal is against the law and on facts of the case. 2. That ADDL/JCIT has erred in law and facts in sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,82,59,837/- made by assessing officer

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order, both dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Both appeals filed delayed by 08 days for which an affidavit is filed explaining the circumstances for the delay. It is stated that