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

condonation of the delay in filing Form No. 108. The same is reproduced as herewith: Under the provisions of 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

condonation of the delay in filing Form No. 108. The same is reproduced as herewith: Under the provisions of 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

condonation of the delay in filing Form No. 108. The same is reproduced as herewith: Under the provisions of 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

condonation of the delay in filing Form No. 108. The same is reproduced as herewith: Under the provisions of section

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. Representations have been received by the Board/field authorities stating that Form no. 108 could not be filed along with the return of income for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form no. 10B may be condoned

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condoned the Delay. However, here onwards we are discussing the merits of the case. 8. In this case, Assessee is a Charitable Trust duly registered u/s.12A of the Act. Copy of the said order has been filed by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer in an order u/s.143(3) rejected assessee’s claim for exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The relevant

S T CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2136/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 S T Co-Operative Credit V The Income Tax Officer, Society, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Swargate S T Depo, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Swargate Bus Stand, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabas6856L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.08.2024 For A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause As Explained In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed Before Cit(A) & Therefore, The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice & The Appeal Should Have Been Adjudicated On Merits. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Deduction U/S 80P Was Allowable In Respect Of Interest Earned From Deposits Made By Cooperative Banks As Consistently Held By Honorable

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 09.08.2024 for A.Y.2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant by refusing to condone the delay of 108

CHANDAN HASSANAND LOKWANI,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandan Hassanand Lokwani, V The Assistant 2 Jawahar Market, Nashik Road, S Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 422101. Income Tax, Circle-1, Pan : Abcpl7072N Nashik. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 18.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 108 Days In Filing The Appeal Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Said Delay Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice. 2) The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That In This Case, The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Was Made By The A.O. Towards Non Deduction Of Tds On Interest Paid To Three Nbfc In Spite Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Furnished Ca Certificate In Form 26A To Prove That The Payees Had Offered The Interest To Tax & Paid Taxes Thereon & Hence, The Said Addition Resulted Into Double Taxation Of The Same Income & Therefore, The Impugned Delay Of 108 Days In Filing Appeal Ought To Have Been Condoned In View Of The Ratio Laid Down By Hon'Ble Madras High Court In Case Of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. V. Cit [248 Itr 681].

section 250 of the Income tax Act 1961, dated 18.05.2024. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 108

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR vs. THE NEW MIRAJ EDUCATION SOCIETY, MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

108 was without any malafide intentions to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying the filing of Form 10B. Also, this is merely a procedural default that does not invalidate the eligibility of the exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee trust. Subsequently, the assessee trust was given to understand that all the compliances were made

ARSA GLEE FOUNDATION,NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

108 days respectively in filing of these appeals, for which, the assessee has filed condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the 2 ITA.No.1734 & 1721/PUN./2024 reasons for such delay which is due to ill-health of the trustee Mr. Arun Sawant who was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the trust. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring

ARSA GLEE FOUNDATION,NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

108 days respectively in filing of these appeals, for which, the assessee has filed condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the 2 ITA.No.1734 & 1721/PUN./2024 reasons for such delay which is due to ill-health of the trustee Mr. Arun Sawant who was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the trust. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring

YOUTH FOUNDATION NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 , PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of 108 days. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of the PCIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for those issues which were already examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act presuming certain incorrect facts in circumstances of the case