SHRI PANCMURTI EDUCATION SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as above

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

condone the delay in furnishing the auditor's report and accept the same at a belated stage. It has been clarified that the exemption available to the trust under section 11 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report. The word <169>shall<170> occurring in section 12A cannot, under the circumstances

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

4. The essential requirement of section 139(4A) for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) is "if the total income in respect of which assessee is assessable as representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this act without giving effect to provisions of section 11 & 12) exceeds the maximum amount which

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

4,5,6,12,14,15,16,17,23,26,28 are religious in nature. Also, the expenditure allocated to these religious activities has consistently exceeded 5% over the past three years. In light of this observation, it is evident that the trust does not meet the conditions outlined in clause (ii) of section 80G(5) when read in conjunction

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

condone the delay and take on record the written statement is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the written statement, already filed, be taken on record and the same be considered in accordance with law. It is reported that an interim injunction application is pending before the learned Trial Court since long. We direct the learned Trial

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of delay is thus unjustified and unwarranted. 4. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law in the absence of any satisfaction in the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs.6,51,000/- includes Rs.6,00,000/- paid by cheque

AKSHAY DEVIDAS TAJANE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD -1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay in filing Denial of relief u/s 90 2. 253 Form no.67, should have been at ` 1,94,852 condoned. 2 Shri Akshay Devidas Tajane ITA no.161/Nag./2025 The CPC/Addl. JCIT(A)–1, Guru– gram is not justified in denying Denial of relief u/s 90 3. 253 the relief under section 90, at ` 1,94,852 without giving any reason

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)

delay is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in this case, the Assessee being a public charitable trust registered under applicable laws, filed its return of income on dated 31/03/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 32,099/- for the assessment year under consideration before the due date as per section 139(4

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

HARIOM BIOTECH AGRI FARMING,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, CPC BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

4. The correct alternative for the appellant would have been to file a revised return within time available for it, or file such revised return after getting any delay condoned by the Administrative Commissioner.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that there is an error in filing

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

GANESH MAHADEORAO THAWARE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay. 4. The assessee is a salaried individual, who did not file return of income believing that he did not have taxable income. During the year under consideration, the assessee was working as the Principal of Arvind Indo Public CBSE School at Saoner in Maharashtra. As per the information available with the Department that during the year

TUSHAR SHANKAR SHINDE,AKOLA vs. ITO,WARD-3, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

4. The Ld. JCIT (A) erred in expecting the appellant to file a revised return, though barred by limitation, after making application for condonation of delay. Such view of the Id. officer to seek condonation of delay to file a revised return is not in line with section 139

HERD EDUCATIONAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24

condone the same u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and therefore the Assessee should have filed such petition before the appropriate authority and not before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner consequently dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee has claimed that it had filed original return of income well before the due date