DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced hereinbelow: “3. Bar of limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.” 11. Though Section

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced hereinbelow: “3. Bar of limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.” 11. Though Section

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced hereinbelow: “3. Bar of limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.” 11. Though Section

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced hereinbelow: “3. Bar of limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.” 11. Though Section

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

13 Mad. 269, "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood, the words sufficient 5 ITA No.1110/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1St Floor, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, Ahmednagar. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaala0304R …. Vs. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar. …. ""यथ"/ Respondent

condoning the delay and, therefore, I proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits. Adjudication on the issue on merits 5. Regarding the issue on merits, the brief facts include that the assessee filed the return of income on 26.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.2,10,93,677/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s ITA Nos.2771 & 2772/PUN/2017

M/S. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE , , AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1St Floor, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, Ahmednagar. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaala0304R …. Vs. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar. …. ""यथ"/ Respondent

condoning the delay and, therefore, I proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits. Adjudication on the issue on merits 5. Regarding the issue on merits, the brief facts include that the assessee filed the return of income on 26.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.2,10,93,677/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s ITA Nos.2771 & 2772/PUN/2017

TDK ELECTRONICS AG, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG),,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE -1,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tdk Electronics Ag Vs. Acit (It), (Formerly Known As Epcos Ag) Circle-1, Pune C/O. Epcos India Pvt. Ltd., E-22-25, Midc Satpur, Nashik 422 007 Pan : Aaace9787H Appellant Respondent

13) 24.10.2019 5 TDK Electronics AG 5. As the draft order in this case was admittedly received by the assessee on 24.12.2018, the period of 30 days for filing Form No. 35A, in terms of sub-section (2) of section 144C, expired on 23.01.2019. As against this, the assessee actually filed Form No.35A on 24.01.2019, thereby causing a delay

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

13. Counsel appearing for the Revenue then argued that as per this circular, the auditor’s report could only be furnished upto the stage ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of framing of assessment as the power to condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter

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

13. Counsel appearing for the Revenue then argued that as per this circular, the auditor’s report could only be furnished upto the stage ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of framing of assessment as the power to condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter

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

13. Counsel appearing for the Revenue then argued that as per this circular, the auditor’s report could only be furnished upto the stage ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of framing of assessment as the power to condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter

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

13. Counsel appearing for the Revenue then argued that as per this circular, the auditor’s report could only be furnished upto the stage ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of framing of assessment as the power to condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter

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

13. Counsel appearing for the Revenue then argued that as per this circular, the auditor’s report could only be furnished upto the stage ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of framing of assessment as the power to condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter

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

13. Counsel appearing for the Revenue then argued that as per this circular, the auditor’s report could only be furnished upto the stage ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of framing of assessment as the power to condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

13. The ld. AR referred to section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to contend that deduction made from an employee’s salary for the month of October should suffer disallowance only if it is not paid by 15th December. This argument was premised on the language of section 5, which says that the wages of every person

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 27(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.” In Madhu Dadha vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hon'ble Madras High Court in their decision dated 23.6.2009 in TC (A). No. 421 of 2009 while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. RAMACHANDRAN v. State

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

13,018/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the explanation with reasoned facts, however, the assessee failed to furnish any explanation thereof. Consequently, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2021 disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act was initiated simultaneously for under

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

13,002/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 06.03.2024 by making an addition of Rs.52,052/- on account of variation in respect of issue of exemption u/s 10(10B) of the Act and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of variation in respect of issue of exemption u/s 10(10)(iii) of the Act by holding