KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

business of banking/providing credit/loan facilities to its members. It filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 07.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80P of the Income

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal and thereby sustaining the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in business of manufacturing of corrugated boxes. He filed his return of income

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961.on the basis of declaration

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

business affairs including the tax matters. It is worthwhile to mention here that in this case various hearings took place and when it was told to the counsel of the assessee that the Bench is not willing to condone the delay the counsel of the assessee sought adjournment and furnished this another affidavit wherein the ground of death

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of ₹.4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing Officer in fact partly acted upon the revised return filed by considering the adjustments

SAI SAKSHI AUTOMOTIVE LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-6(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

income of the assessee at Rs.7,34,04,170/- by making the following disallowances / additions: i) Disallowance of EPF/ESIC contribution Rs.14,77,899/- ii) Disallowances in Profit and Loss Account Rs.72,51,796/- iii) Unexplained Cash credits u/s 68 Rs.6,68,20,111/- 4. Since the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 149 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Income-tax Rules, 1962. The due dates for filing of the same were 15-7-2010 and 15-10-2010 respectively. The A.O calculated the delay in filing the returns of 568 days and 476 days for the first and second quarter respectively. Notices u/s 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act were issued by the Addl