M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The facts and grounds are common in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. Accordingly, the appeal-wise adjudication is taken up in the following paragraphs. ITA No.2795/PUN/2016

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 4. The facts and grounds are common in both the appeals, therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. Accordingly, the appeal-wise adjudication is taken up in the following paragraphs. ITA No.2795/PUN/2016

SHRIVARDHAN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KONDIGRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, ICHALKARANJI

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

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

115 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is a company, engaged in the business of marketing of agricultural produce cultivated in its farm. For AY 2018-19, assessee filed its return of income on 31/10/2018 declaring income of ₹ NIL and agricultural income

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

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

KISAN SEVA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,BUBNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2802/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

115 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional or deliberate but has occurred for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. After hearing both the sides

SUDHAKAR DEVAPPA MANERE,,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

115 …. ""यथ" / Respondent PAN : AAZPM7738C अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2018 Date of Hearing : 05.01.2018 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue involving

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SUDHAKAR DEVAPPA MANARE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1322/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

115 …. ""यथ" / Respondent PAN : AAZPM7738C अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2018 Date of Hearing : 05.01.2018 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue involving

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and\nadmit the same for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\n“1.\nThe Ld AO relied on the information of AIR regarding cash deposit of\nRs.11,00,000/- in ShyamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd. Mumbai, but has\nno tangible reliable material of the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. TRIZETTO SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. Trizetto Services India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, “D” Building, Weikfield, It-Citi Infopark, Nagar Road, Pune-411014. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aabct8862F Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Drp-3, Mumbai Dated 14.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- Whether The Drp Was Justified In Rejecting Eclerx Services Ltd. “1. Treating It As Kpo Without Appreciating That Kpo & Bpo Companies Both Fell Under Broader Ites Category & In Reality There Is Seamlessness In Ites Functions & Comparability Analysis Is Based On Functions, Assets & Risk. 2. Whether The Drp Was Right In Law & On Facts In Directing Tpo To Re- Compute The Operating Profit Margin Of The Assessee Without Considering The One Time Price Rebate Of Rs.5,32,10,455/-.” 3. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Bpo Services I.E. Remote Processing Applications Including

condoning the delay, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee in the following paragraphs. 12. We shall now take up the issue-wise adjudication in the following paragraphs. 6 1. Inclusion/Exclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd. – Ground No.1 13. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a covered issue and the said

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 163 & 164 days in filing of the instant appeals in ITA Nos. 1415 & 1416/PUN/2024 respectively before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are common, first we take up ITA No. 1415/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 as a lead case. The modified grounds of appeal raised

HOTEL SURYA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

115 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2017- 18 and a delay of 78 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2021-22 before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with

HOTEL SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WAD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

115 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2017- 18 and a delay of 78 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2021-22 before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with

SWATANTRAVIR SAVARKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

115 days delay each. A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the assessee has filed it’s common 2 ITA.No.881 & 882/PUN./2023 condonation petition(s) in both these appeals explaining the same. All these solemn averments have gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. I thus quote Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji