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

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

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

section 27(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.” In Madhu Dadha vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hon'ble Madras High Court in their decision dated 23.6.2009 in TC (A). No. 421 of 2009 while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. RAMACHANDRAN v. State

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

46 minutes in filing the return of income, a deduction of Rs. 2,34,41,162/- is denied to assessee. 7. Section 80AC provides that deduction u/s 80IC shall be allowed to assessee if the return is filed on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139. However, section 139(4) carves out an exception

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,74,48,078made by the A.O by holding that the income arising on compulsory acquisition of land held as stock in trade

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

condoned by the Dept. and hence, the deduction u/s 11 may be allowed by Hon'ble ITAT in view of the wide powers vested with Hon'ble Tribunal to do justice. 41 Without prejudice to the above grounds, assuming without admitting that the exemption u/s 11 is not allowable to the appellant trust, still it is submitted that the entire

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

46,79,75,225 instead of NIL returned income. 2. The learned AO ought to have granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) since the appellant trust solely engaged in the 2 activities for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, and it is substantially financed by the government. 3. The appellant contends that taxable income of a charitable institution

PUNE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

10(46) without first disposing off the application filed by the appellant is bad in law. Revenue is not justified in raising enormous tax demands on a matter which the revenue itself is undecided. Ref- Shrikar Hotels (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 657 (All). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order

PUNE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

10(46) without first disposing off the application filed by the appellant is bad in law. Revenue is not justified in raising enormous tax demands on a matter which the revenue itself is undecided. Ref- Shrikar Hotels (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 657 (All). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order

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

46,931/- u/s 69A; (ii) Rs.21,45,000/- on account of undisclosed capital gain and (iii) Rs.75,896/- on account of interest income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone