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

LITTLE SCHOLAR PRATHMIK VIDHYALAYA SHIKSHA SANSTHAN,KASHIPUR vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Little Scholar Prathmik Vs. Cit(E), Vidhyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Lucknow Bhalla Farm,Ramnagar, Kashipur, Uttarakhand 244713 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaal2930K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2025

56 days. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition, we are inclined to condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Learned DR and based on materials available

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)

1) ,in holding that relief could not be sought for arrears of salary or receipt of salary in advance, when relief was claimed under Sec 10(10)C( on account of amendment in Law) 2.1 That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs 2,41,874, as the amount had not been received