SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

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

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE vs. SHIVAI VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and directed the Ld. CPC/AO to delete the addition made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. Addl./JCIT

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

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

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2: Brief facts of the case are as under, For the year under consideration ie. AY 2021-22, it filed its Income Tax return on 30.12.2021, vide Ack No. 653076820301221 declaring total income of Rs. 36,460. The due date for filing of the Income, Tax return was 15.02.2022. In the ITR filed, the assessee trust

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below:\n(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of\nan Assessing Officer-\n(a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of\nsection 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139,\nafter the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below:\n(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of\nan Assessing Officer-\n(a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of\nsection 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139,\nafter the expiry of one month from the date on which

EARTH CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMTPITON), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 124 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

condonation of delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal since there was reasonable cause on his part in not filing the appeal within prescribed time limit. 15 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 2) The Ld. Pr. CIT erred holding that the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby erred