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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

ANANDA GORAKHANATH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 3, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

delay to filing the Appeal should not be condoned especially when he had dealt with all the issues in Appellate Order. 3. The learned CIT has erred both in facts and in law in not dealing with other issues on merits. 4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay in filing Form No.10-IC is with ld.CCIT and ld.Pr.CIT. Findings & Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, vide order u/sec.143(1), Assessee’s claim for benefit of ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] lower tax as per section 115BBA was denied on the ground that Form No.10-IC was not filed electronically

PASHANKAR AUTO INDIA PVT LTD,PUNE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

condone the delay in both the AYs. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- AY 2013-14 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee could receive hard copy of the appellate order on only 17/07/2023 for the reasons A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 beyond its control. An affidavit explaining the circumstances is enclosed

PASHANKAR AUTO INDIA PVT LTD,PUNE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

condone the delay in both the AYs. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- AY 2013-14 “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee could receive hard copy of the appellate order on only 17/07/2023 for the reasons A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 beyond its control. An affidavit explaining the circumstances is enclosed

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, , PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

D.Y. PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2016 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: N.A. D.Y.Patil Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 2126, „E‟ Tarabai Park, S Income Tax(Central), Kolhapur – 416003. Pune. Pan: Aaatd8919M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Dharmesh Shah & S R Kabra – Cas Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Under Section 12Aa R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(Central) In Deciding The Issue Of Registration Of The Education Society Under 5. 12Aa Of The Act Vide His Order Dt. 24-02-2016 Erred In

condonation of delay back to the file of the Commissioner is no reflection on the merits which the Commissioner shall adjudicate appropriately in accordance with law. 16. In so far as the plea of the assessee that it had been granted registration earlier, the same in our view has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner and no fault

SRI PROJECTS,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay of appeal filed without specifically directing to substantiate the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and hence erred in not providing the opportunity of being heard 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not passing the order by adjudicating the legal ground and merits of the case. Ground challenging the validity of the assessment order

THE MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD. ( IN LIQUIDATION),DHULE vs. THE ITO, WARD- -1, DHULE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

depreciation of past years (to the extent available), against the income assessed (if any) for AY 2018-19. 7. Appellant craves leave to add / alter / modify / amend / delete all / any of the Grounds of Appeal.” Delay : 2. There was a delay of 74 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

delay condonation application with\nHon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune.\nTechnical Mistake in submission of ITR:\nAssessee trust is a charitable trust exclusively engaged in imparting\nof recognized educational courses. Moreover, the institution is\nsubstantially financed by the Government, therefore, whole of the\nincome of the trust is exempted u/s. 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act.\nTherefore

NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co- operative Bank engaged in the business of carrying on banking business. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 for AY 2012-13 declaring the 2 ITA No.208/PUN/2024, AY 2012-13 total income of Rs.12