AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

reopening proceedings and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.50 lacs u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There is a delay of 565 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit 2 explaining the reasons for such delay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.26,873/-. The assessment was completed

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reopening of assessment and failed to appreciate that in reassessing the income of the appellant u/s 147 the AO did not consider that the material facts were already before him in the scrutiny assessment done u/s 143 (3) for the impugned year and no addition to income on account of stock of traded goods had been made in the said

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reopening of assessment and failed to appreciate that in reassessing the income of the appellant u/s 147 the AO did not consider that the material facts were already before him in the scrutiny assessment done u/s 143 (3) for the impugned year and no addition to income on account of stock of traded goods had been made in the said

JAYANT GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 5 SANGLI, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.129,61,439/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

assessment proceedings for\n Assessment Year 200203 sought information in respect of the\nallocation of expenses and the explanation offered by the Petitioner\nwas found to be satisfactory. This is evident from query dated 27th\nDecember, 2004 and the Petitioner's response to the same on 25th\nJanuary, 2005 explaining the manner of distribution of common\nexpenses for delaying

MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT L/H OF LATE MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and proceed for adjudication on merits. 6. I first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No.1919/PUN/2024 read as under: “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding

MANJU MADHUSUDAN DHOOT, L/H OF LATE MADHUSUDAN DHOOT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1919 & 1920/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and proceed for adjudication on merits. 6. I first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No.1919/PUN/2024 read as under: “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding

POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS), RANGE-NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1543 & 1544/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Post Master Head Post Office The I.T. Commissioner Of Parbhani, Vs I.T., (Tds), Range Nashik. Near Telephone Exchange, Shaniwar Bazar, Parbhani – 431401 Pan/Tan: Nskpo 2820 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Y.S.Nagla –Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The One Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Aurangabad For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively, Both Dated 20.08.2019. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1543/Pun/2019 For A.Y.2014-15 As Lead Case.

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 7. The only issue involved is levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for delay in submitting TDS statement. There is no dispute regarding delay in submitting the TDS statements. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The ITAT Pune in the case of Medical ITA Nos.1543 & 1544/PUN/2019 for A.Ys

POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE- NASHIK, NASIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1543 & 1544/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Post Master Head Post Office The I.T. Commissioner Of Parbhani, Vs I.T., (Tds), Range Nashik. Near Telephone Exchange, Shaniwar Bazar, Parbhani – 431401 Pan/Tan: Nskpo 2820 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Y.S.Nagla –Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The One Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Aurangabad For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively, Both Dated 20.08.2019. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1543/Pun/2019 For A.Y.2014-15 As Lead Case.

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 7. The only issue involved is levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for delay in submitting TDS statement. There is no dispute regarding delay in submitting the TDS statements. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The ITAT Pune in the case of Medical ITA Nos.1543 & 1544/PUN/2019 for A.Ys

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoning the delay. 2 ITA No.1726/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 2.2 It is submitted that, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such action was called for. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. Reopening under Section 147 3.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition levied

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

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

condoning the delay of 171 days in filing of the appeal. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in trading activity of Kernals of cashew after grading and repackaging. Since the assessee had not filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year, the case of the assessee was reopened

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

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

condoning the delay of 171 days in filing of the appeal. 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in trading activity of Kernals of cashew after grading and repackaging. Since the assessee had not filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year, the case of the assessee was reopened

P.P. ENTERPRISES,,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

condone the delay and ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on merits. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the reopening of the assessment

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 13.04.2022 and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was served on 29.01.2023. The assessee failed to file return of income, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and also failed to comply with the notice(s) issued u/s 142(1) of the Act as well

SANDHYA SHRIKANT KADAM,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Sandhya Shrikant Kadam Ito, Ward-1(5), Vidya Nagar East, Aurangabad Vs. Near Ganga Narayan Hospital, Barshi Road, Beed – 431122 Pan: Cgxpk1065L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Department By : Shri Gaurav K Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026

assessment year 2018-19. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay of 191 days on account of insufficient cause and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. There is a delay of 50 days in filing

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

condone the impugned delay of 835 days in filing appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. Next, comes the assessee‟s first and foremost legal issue challenging validity of the impugned reopening. A perusal of the assessment

ABHIJIT DESHPANDE , PANDIT AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. Before us, Ld.A.R. on the additional grounds submitted that AO has re-opened the assessment and the reasons for re-opening were supplied to the assessee along with notice u/s 148 of the Act dt.09.07.2013. He submitted that the assessee vide letter dt.05.03.2014 objected to the re-opening; the copy

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI CAMP AT PARBHANI, PARBHANI vs. RAJARAM RAMSWARUP JAJU, SELU PARBHANI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1882/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Ward Hingoli Camp At Vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Parbhani, Parbhani. Jaju, 223, Jaju Industries Atre Nagar, Selu, Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.35//Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1882/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Vs. Ito, Ward Hingoli 223, Jaju Industries Atre Camp At Parbhani, Nagar, Selu, Parbhani. Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Assessee By : Shri Anand R. Partani & Shri Darshan R. Gattani Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

reopened u/s 148 of the IT Act based on the ground that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.55,30,281/- in his bank account maintained with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. during the financial year 2015-16. Considering this information, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings