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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

delay condonation application with\nHon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune.\nTechnical Mistake in submission of ITR:\nAssessee trust is a charitable trust exclusively engaged in imparting\nof recognized educational courses. Moreover, the institution is\nsubstantially financed by the Government, therefore, whole of the\nincome of the trust is exempted u/s. 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act.\nTherefore

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

115 24060200018492 26Q Q1 15-Jul-11 08-Sep-12 405 24060200018503 26Q Q2 15-Oct-11 08-Sep-12 313 24060200018514 26Q Q3 15-Jan-12 08-Sep-12 221 24060200018525 26Q Q4 15-May-12 08-Sep-12 116 4. A notice was duly served on the assessee. However, there was no compliance of the said notice

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

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

condone the delay of\n163 & 164 days in filing of the instant appeals in ITA Nos.\n1415 & 1416/PUN/2024 respectively before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeals for adjudication.\n3. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are\ncommon, first we take up ITA No. 1415/PUN/2024 for A.Y.\n2014-15 as a lead case. The modified grounds of appeal raised

SHREE PARASHAR VIVIDH KARY KARI SAHAKARI VIKAS SANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

115. PAN AAMAS7882F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055146765(1), dated