SWARGIY GOPALRAO GAWANDE BAHUUDESHIY SANSTHA BHIDI,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Exemptions), Nagpur, issued statutory notices dated 12/09/2018, under section 274 r/w section 272A(2)(e) of the Act fixing the date of hearing on 27/09/2018, to explain the reason for non-filing of return of income on time and to show cause as to why penalty under section 272A(2)(e) of the Act should not be levied upon

SHRI VYANKANATH MAHARAJ SHIKSHAN SANSTHA MURTIZAPUR,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD - 2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Exemption) erred in cancelling the provisional registration without specifying any specified violation in the case of assessee. 5. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. There is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee furnished application seeking condonation

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIT (E), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay in filing application for registration u/s 80G? 6. Appellant pray to kind allow to add, amend, modify alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. The order passed by the CIT (Exemption

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condonation was not granted to us and the order has been passed without giving further opportunity of being heard. The reason for delay is due to application of interest waiver with Honourable CIT (Exemptions

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condonation was not granted to us and the order has been passed without giving further opportunity of being heard. The reason for delay is due to application of interest waiver with Honourable CIT (Exemptions

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR vs. DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condonation of delay should have been regarded without being too hyper technical and in a judicious manner. A Public Charitable Trust that fulfils the condition to claim these exemptions

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Exemption), Pune at Nagpur and immediately filed appeal on 19/03/2025. In support of its contention the assessee society has filed affidavit also. The counsel for the assessee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned

DHARAMITRA,WARDHA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

exemption under section 11 on delayed filing of Form 10B is justified and valid in law, when the Hon’ble CBDT has condoned

PRAKASH SHESHRAO WANKHEDE,KORADI KAMPTEE, NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

exemption u/sec 54F of the Act and not a deliberate act. On a perusal of the CIT(A) order, the appellate authority has provided opportunity to explain the sufficient case for the delay in filing the appeal and there was compliance by the assessee explaining the delay dealt at Para2.1 of the order .Whereas the delay in filling the appeal

SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

condone the delay in filing the present appeal 5 ITA 240/NAG/2015_ Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari Vs ITO as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. Brief facts of the case are that return of income for the year under consideration

ARTHAKALASH MAGASVARGIYA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATH SWANSTHA LIMITED,DHAMANGAON vs. ITO WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

exemption claimed u/s 80P of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. However, no action or further communication was received from the authorities. The assessee, therefore, filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A). However, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same by observing

VASUNDHARA BAHUUDESHIYA SAMAJIKK SANSTHA,KHAMGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust

SHRI PANDURANG SANSTHAN DEULGAON MALI,MEHKAR vs. ITO WARD-2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Pandurang Sansthan Ito (Exemption), Deulgaon Mali At Post Deulgaon Ward-2, Nagpur. Vs. Mahi, Mehkar-443001 Pan: Aagts 8497 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay in filing Form 10B before the Ld.CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 31/05/2021, which has subsequently been rejected vide

DEESHA MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

delay in filing of application cannot be condoned by Ld. CIT (Exemptions). The Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate

NAG VIDARBHA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Nag Vidarbha Chamber Of Income Tax Officer Commerce, Temple Road Ward-2(1) Civil Lines Vs. Nagpur Nagpur Pan:Aaacn 9456C (Respondent) (Appellant)

delay in filing the present Appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the Affidavit. Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commercevs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessment order came to be passed on 28/08/2014 against the Assessee company by assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs.4,33,110/- as against the returned income of Rs.1

ASHUTOSH RAM SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), NAGPUR

In the result, both the above Tax

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shrikhettra Mohan Royashutosh Ram Shewalkar Ito, Ward – 5(2) 80, North Ambazari Road, Vs Bsnl, Rttcbldg Daga Layout Nagpur – 440010 Dharmapeth, Nagpur - 440010 [Pan: Aepps8104N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shrimanoj G Moryani, Adv& Shribhavesh M. Moryani, Adv Revenue By Shrisurjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 5. On various grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR stated that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this bench in case of co-owner namely Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar

POLICE KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA GONDIA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, GONDIA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoning the delay, accordingly we do so. 5. Before us, Shri Abhay Agrawal, Counsel appearing for the assessee invited our attention to the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) which is reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.2. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION: The appellant did not make any specific submission in this regard. However, he filed