INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The Hon’ble High Court while holding so has distinguished the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Wipro

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

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

Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that the issue of condonation of delay for grant of registration with retrospective effect, requires fresh adjudication in view of material placed before us, hence, in the interests of justice, we set aside

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act was denied for delay in filing form 10B. This Tribunal held in favour of the assessee holding that filing of form 10B is merely a procedural requirement and the defect is curable. The relevant finding of this Tribunal in case of Manav Seva Trust (supra) reads as under: - “3. We have considered the submissions

SUNIL RAMKRISHANA PATOLE,NASHIK vs. ITO, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1329/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sunil Ramkrishna Patole Vs Ito, Ward 3(1) Plot No. 29, Vinchur Road, Nashik Datta Nagar, Yeola- 423401 Maharashtra Pan-Aompp1953M Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 125 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Further I restore the issue raised on merits relating to additions of Rs. 13,53,643/- back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order as contemplated in section

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

125 STC 375 SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987 SC 1353), cited by the appellant. The CIT(A) incorrectly held that these decisions, which dealt with delays of 7 and 4 days respectively, were not applicable to the present case involving a delay of 202 days. The CIT(A) failed to properly consider the true and correct

BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

125 STC 375 SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987 SC 1353), cited by the appellant. The CIT(A) incorrectly held that these decisions, which dealt with delays of 7 and 4 days respectively, were not applicable to the present case involving a delay of 202 days. The CIT(A) failed to properly consider the true and correct

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

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

condone such 10 delay. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed that the order of rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case of JCIT v. Gujarat Energy Development Agency154 taxmann.com 348 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee, a charitable trust, filed audit report in Form No. 10B during assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer could not have denied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, , PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT