PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

Section 249(3) which states 3 "The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.” 4.2.2 For condonation of delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, the assessee has to satisfy the Commissioner (Appeals) by explaining the sufficient

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

2) of Section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed." 8. Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred

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

2) of Section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed." 8. Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred

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

2) of Section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed." 8. Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred

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

2) of Section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed." 8. Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred

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

2) of Section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed." 8. Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred

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

2) of Section 288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed." 8. Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred

MAHRATTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

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

condonation of delay, the appellant has cited three reasons for delay filing of appeal (a) non awareness of the assessment proceedings (b) a notice for penalty proceedings was received on 17.05.2023, thereby Income Tax Portal was checked but assessment order was not available (c) the assessment order was uploaded on 28.06.2023. In this case, the assessment proceedings were completed under

LIONS NAB COMMUNITY EYECARE CENTRE, MIRAJ,SANGLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions Nab Community Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Eyecare Centre, Plot No.P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli- 416410. Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated In M.A. No.151/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.257/Pun/2022 Dated 06.01.2023 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue De Novo. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly

delay not condoned. However, the subsequent act of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deciding the case on merits upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. On perusal of the record, it is observed that DCIT(CPC) has not made any disallowance or not added

SHRI AKHIL BHARTIYA SAMARTH JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

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

section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. The assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 432 days. The assessee has filed an application along with a sworn affidavit of the Managing Trustee seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal stating therein the reasons for delay as under : “A. Background: 1. The appellant

SHUBHSITA FOUNDATION,THANE vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1284 & 1282/Pun/2024

2. At the outset, we find the appeals are time barred by limitation by 193 days before the Tribunal. The appellant trust filed petitions praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by the Tax Consultant. The affidavit of Tax Consultant is also placed on record

SHUBHSITA FOUNDATION,THANE vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1284 & 1282/Pun/2024

2. At the outset, we find the appeals are time barred by limitation by 193 days before the Tribunal. The appellant trust filed petitions praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of wrong advice given by the Tax Consultant. The affidavit of Tax Consultant is also placed on record

SHRI SAMARTH JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH TRUST,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA No.1310/PUN/2024 filed by the appellant trust is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1310 & 1309/Pun/2024

2. At the outset, we find that the appeals are time barred by limitation by 557 days before the Tribunal. The appellant trust had filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the orders were served to e-mail id/address which was inactive. The orders could be retrieved only when the e-mail id was made

SHRI SAMARTH JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH TRUST,AURANGABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA No.1310/PUN/2024 filed by the appellant trust is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1310 & 1309/Pun/2024

2. At the outset, we find that the appeals are time barred by limitation by 557 days before the Tribunal. The appellant trust had filed an affidavit praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the orders were served to e-mail id/address which was inactive. The orders could be retrieved only when the e-mail id was made

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), AKURDI vs. VASANTRAO NAIK NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, ALEPHATA

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No

127 days. The ld. D.R sought condonation of delay in filing these appeals in view of outbreak of Covid 19 at the relevant time. Taking into consideration the outbreak of Covid 19, at the A.Y. 2017-18 relevant time, the said delay is condoned and the instant appeals are admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD- 10(1),, AKURDI vs. SHRI SAINATH NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, AMBEGAON

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No

127 days. The ld. D.R sought condonation of delay in filing these appeals in view of outbreak of Covid 19 at the relevant time. Taking into consideration the outbreak of Covid 19, at the A.Y. 2017-18 relevant time, the said delay is condoned and the instant appeals are admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment

POONAM RAHUL ANAND,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Poonam Rahul Anand, V The Income Tax Officer, Anands Plot No.70, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Niwas River View, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422007. Pan: Addpa4704D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 16.07.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 224 Days In Filing The Appeal Against The Asst. Order U/S 147 Without Appreciating That The Said Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause & The Same Ought To Have Been Condoned In The Interest Of Justice.

section 250 of the Act, ld.CIT(A) in Para 1 has mentioned incorrect date i.e.23.03.2023. Thus, the illness of the assessee and date of assessment order coincides. Assessee also filed an Affidavit before us explaining the reason for delay in filling appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 3.2 In these facts and circumstances of the case we are convinced that there

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,74,48,078made by the A.O by holding that the income arising on compulsory acquisition of land held as stock in trade

ATISH ANANDA BARNE,PUNE vs. PRAVIN AGRAWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(v) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 127 days. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning