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

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

KALIAPERUMAL SELVARAJ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

condone the delay of 117 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the NFAC, Delhi, in case of any failure, NFAC, Delhi is liberty to dispose off the appeal of assessee as contemplated under sub- section

ARJUN BHAIRU BHANGIRE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

117,Mohamad Wadi, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : BXBPB9884J Appellant Respondent Assessee(s) by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned three appeals pertaining to different but connected assesses relate to Assessment Year 2017-18 and they

ABHIMAYU ARJUN BHANGIRE,PUNE vs. ITO 14(1), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

117,Mohamad Wadi, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : BXBPB9884J Appellant Respondent Assessee(s) by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned three appeals pertaining to different but connected assesses relate to Assessment Year 2017-18 and they

ABHIMAYU ARJUN BHANGIRE,PUNE vs. ITO 14(1), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

117,Mohamad Wadi, Pune Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : BXBPB9884J Appellant Respondent Assessee(s) by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned three appeals pertaining to different but connected assesses relate to Assessment Year 2017-18 and they

SHREE AYAPPA SEVA SAMAJAM TRUST,NASHIK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashree Ayappa Seva Samajam Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune Plot No.67, Survey No.484, Opp. Indian Vs. Petrol Pump, Trimbak Road, Satpur, Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aants4413J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avchat Department By : Shri Vishwas S. Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

117 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, 2 the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal

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

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

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MAHAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.934/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Murli Manohar Nagari V Income Tax Officer. Sahakaripatsansthamaryadit, S. 1295, Pimpal Par, M.G.Road, Juni Peth, Mahad, Mahad – 402301. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabas5404L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Shaha Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 11.03.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 263 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, Dated 17.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Delay is condoned. 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society registered under 2 ITA No.934/PUN/2025 [A] Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 on 14.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The Assessee’s case

SHRI SWAMIRAJ BAHUUDDESHIY SANSTHA,DHULE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1721 & 1722/Pun/2025 Shri Swamiraj Bahuuddeshiy Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Sanstha, 117, Sambhappa Colony, Chitod Road, Dhule H.O., Dhule- 424001. Pan : Aants2001E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.01.2025 & 06.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iv) Of The It Act Filed On 20.08.2024 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub- Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act Filed On 10.12.2024 Respectively.

117, Sambhappa Colony, Chitod Road, Dhule H.O., Dhule- 424001. PAN : AANTS2001E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 01.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.01.2025 and 06.06.2025 passed

SHRI SWAMIRAJ BAHUUDDESHIY SANSTHA,DHULE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1721 & 1722/Pun/2025 Shri Swamiraj Bahuuddeshiy Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Sanstha, 117, Sambhappa Colony, Chitod Road, Dhule H.O., Dhule- 424001. Pan : Aants2001E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.01.2025 & 06.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iv) Of The It Act Filed On 20.08.2024 & Denying The Application For Approval In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub- Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act Filed On 10.12.2024 Respectively.

117, Sambhappa Colony, Chitod Road, Dhule H.O., Dhule- 424001. PAN : AANTS2001E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 01.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.01.2025 and 06.06.2025 passed

VAIDYANATH KEDESHWAR SAKHAR UDYOG,,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

117 (SC) in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply