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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

3. Without prejudice to above grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme AYs 2018-19 to 2021-26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the Ld. AO and Ld. Addl./J.CIT(A) erred in charging to tax entire receipts instead of surplus amount. Accordingly

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

3. Without prejudice to above grounds and on the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme AYs 2018-19 to 2021-26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be held that the Ld. AO and Ld. Addl./J.CIT(A) erred in charging to tax entire receipts instead of surplus amount. Accordingly

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

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

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

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

condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 2 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 124 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

124 PAN : AAECC 8784 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 15/10/2025 & 27/10/2025 passed under

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

124 PAN : AAECC 8784 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 15/10/2025 & 27/10/2025 passed under

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

JASMINE ZUBIN SHROFF,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2380/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Jasmine Zubin Shroff V The Income Tax (Through Legal Heir Zubin K S Officer, Shroff), Ward-7(1), Pune. 826/C No.5, Anklesharia Blocks, Dastur Meher Road, Camp, Pune - 411001. Pan:Basps7144E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B C Malakar Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Legal Heir Of Late Jasmine Z. Shroff Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 19.12.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The

124 (Ker) : iii. Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Sing & Other (Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 dated 9/06/2010), the Hon'ble Supreme Court. iv. CIT(exemptions) Pune Vs. Progressive Education Society (2019) 102 Taxman. Com 402 (SC) In this case, the delay was condoned for 362 days directing to hear the appeal on merit. V. Karanjia Terminal & Logistics

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

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