DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

charitable religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

charitable religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

charitable religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

charitable religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

charitable religious trust or institution is expected to file auditor’s report along with the return but in cases where for reasons beyond the control of the assessee some delay has occurred in filing the said report, the ITO, for reasons to be recorded, has been authorised to condone the delay in furnishing the auditor’s report and accepting

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

ZLS FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1939/Pun/2025 Zls Foundation, Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Building No.16/328, Mira Housing Society, 39, Shankar Seth Road, Pune- 411009. Pan : Aabcz4225E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Mutha Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab Of The It Act. 2. There Is Delay Of 257 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay Of 257 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

section 12A(1)(ac) (vi)-ITEM(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby rejected.” 4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that