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

80-IC of the Act. The assessment was completed by the National e-Assessment Centre (“NeAC”) vide draft assessment order dated 24 March 2021. 10. Being aggrieved by the draft order of the NeAC / AO, Applicant filed its objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) on 22 April 2021. 11. The ld. DRP vide its directions dated 25 November 2021 granted

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

80-IC of the Act. The assessment was completed by the National e-Assessment Centre (“NeAC”) vide draft assessment order dated 24 March 2021. 10. Being aggrieved by the draft order of the NeAC / AO, Applicant filed its objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) on 22 April 2021. 11. The ld. DRP vide its directions dated 25 November 2021 granted

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

SHRI ASHWANI GARG,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, W-1(3)(1), HARDWAR, HARDWAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Ashwani Garg, Vs. Ito, Plot No. 106-106A, Sector- Ward-1(3)(1), 6A, Sidcul, Haridwar, Haridwar Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Alcpg7518A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted and taken up for adjudication. 3. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in upholding the addition of Rs 21,90,500/- made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposits

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