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

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

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

112 against the long-term gains from the sale of residential House Property) thereby increasing the returned income by Rs. 35,95,270/-. 3 2. Non-Condonation of the Delay Learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Jaipur erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal on account of a delay of 166 days in filing an appeal memo

KAI SAU ALKATAI PALODKAR KHAJAGI SHIKSHAK SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA M,SILLOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

112 Maharashtra PAN : AAFAK0630G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suraj Kumar Shreekishan Somani Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the captioned assessment years are directed against the separate orders passed u/s.250 of the Income

KAI SAU ALKATAI PALODKAR KHAJAGI SHIKSHAK SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA M,SILLOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

112 Maharashtra PAN : AAFAK0630G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suraj Kumar Shreekishan Somani Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the captioned assessment years are directed against the separate orders passed u/s.250 of the Income

KAI SAU ALKATAI PALODKAR KHAJAGI SHIKSHAK SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA M,SILLOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 1(1) AURANBGAD, AURANABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

112 Maharashtra PAN : AAFAK0630G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suraj Kumar Shreekishan Somani Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 19.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the captioned assessment years are directed against the separate orders passed u/s.250 of the Income

VIDYA VIKAS PRATISHTAN,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Vs. Assessment Unit, 72/2B, Pratap Nagar, Income Tax Department. Soregaon, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaatv8537F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 2 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an order under section 250 of the Act without

ADPR & ASSOCIATES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide both the appeals. AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23 3. The common issue raised in both these appeals is - whether, in the case of private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable to tax at the Maximum Marginal Rate (“MMR”), surcharge is chargeable at the highest applicable rate or as per slab rate

ADPR & ASSOCIATES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1) , NAHSIK

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide both the appeals. AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23 3. The common issue raised in both these appeals is - whether, in the case of private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable to tax at the Maximum Marginal Rate (“MMR”), surcharge is chargeable at the highest applicable rate or as per slab rate

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

condone the delay of 21 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in assessing the appellant income at Rs.11,61,57,413 by passing

NIRANJAN AVHAD FOUNDATION FOR THE DISABLED,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

112 days. In light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, we condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeals

NIRANJAN AVHAD FOUNDATION FOR THE DISABLED,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

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

112 days. In light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, we condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeals