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

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

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 on 16.10.2010 2 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.7,12,450/-. Subsequently, he revised his return by filing revised return

SHRI NIRMAL SHARAD MUTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.2199/Pun/2024 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, V The Assistant Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, S Commissioner Of Income Nagar – Pune Road, Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar – 414001. Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm3572R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prasad Bhandari &Ms.Payal Rathi – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune For Assessment Year 2008-09 Dated 03.03.2020 Passed U/Sec.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A)-2. Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Wrongly Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.25.00.00 Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act Inspite Of The Fact That All The Necessary Conditions Prescribed Under Section 68 Are Fulfilled. Therefore, Addition Confirmed Of Rs.25,00,000 May Please Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A)-2, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Wrongly Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.25,00,00 Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee. Therefore, Addition Confirmed Of Rs.25,00,000 May Please Be Deleted. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain group. 3 4.2 It is observed that the Assessee has filed additional evidence, in the form of Retraction affidavit of Mr.Jain and repayment ledger. Ld.AR filed copy of medical certificate to prove that the assessee was ill for a long period. Since the additional evidence has bearing

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SATARA, INCOME TAX OFFICE SATARA vs. NANDKUMAR DATTATRAY KHOT, DAHIWADI MAN

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

132 was conducted in the case of Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (SRMUCS). During the search proceedings, the department conducted a comprehensive verification of various bank accounts maintained by account holders Through this investigation, the department gathered information about the assessee (Respondent) regarding cash deposits across multiple locations during the Financial Year

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

132 of the Act were conducted in the residential and business premises of the M/s Ramsina Group of cases on 19.12.2014. During such search seizure operations, it was found that M/s. Prarthana Infra had made several cash payments on various dates aggregating to a sum of Rs.8,47,00,000/- to Mr. Vihang Shah and Mr. Anand Shah as advance

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

132 of the Act were conducted in the residential and business premises of the M/s Ramsina Group of cases on 19.12.2014. During such search seizure operations, it was found that M/s. Prarthana Infra had made several cash payments on various dates aggregating to a sum of Rs.8,47,00,000/- to Mr. Vihang Shah and Mr. Anand Shah as advance

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