IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developing properties. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developing properties. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay was also wholly without any merit. [Para 18] It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional, it should exercise great restraint before exercising such a power. Really speaking, there is only one ground

DISCOVERY DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 , NASHIK

condone such delay if it was caused even if for the reasons\nbeyond the control of the assessee.\n18. Interest is to be calculated always on the basis of eligible period. In\ndetermining the eligible period for the levy of interest, the delay caused on\naccount of the assessee need to be excluded. The law does not permit

MR KEDAR JAGDISH MANKAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

condonation is granted, she may again apply for rectification before the Jurisdictional Α.Ο.” 4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 5. The Ld. AR vide his written submission filed before the Bench (pages 7-13 of the paper book refers) submitted that the impugned order u/s 154

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

u/s 143(1) was passed on 24/03/2013 deciding the Gross tax Liability at Rs.8,10,979/- instead of Rs.Nil shown in the Return of Income by the assessee. Assessee has filed Rectification applications,copies of the same have been filed in the paper book. We have also noted the acknowledgement stamp of the office of Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

u/s 143(1) was passed on 24/03/2013 deciding the Gross tax Liability at Rs.8,10,979/- instead of Rs.Nil shown in the Return of Income by the assessee. Assessee has filed Rectification applications,copies of the same have been filed in the paper book. We have also noted the acknowledgement stamp of the office of Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

GAURAV RAJA PATHAK,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE1(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 : 2021-22

u/s 154 is not acceptable as filing of appeal and filing of rectification application are two separate legal processes and filing of rectification application cannot prevent appellant to file the appeal in time. The reasons stated by the appellant have been perused but are not found to be tenable as the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in 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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in 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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in 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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return