EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD ,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, EXEMTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE ,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause merits dismissal, ergo ordered accordingly. 6. We now deal with ITA No. 1919/PUN/2017; wherein we note that; 6.1 The appellant assessee is public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and is also registered u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act. 6.2 The assessee society

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

delayed and the same has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A). 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a written note in support of contention that one more opportunity may be granted so that various details which could not filed before the lower authorities can be submitted and issues on merits can be adjudicated. The contentions made

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

delayed and the same has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A). 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a written note in support of contention that one more opportunity may be granted so that various details which could not filed before the lower authorities can be submitted and issues on merits can be adjudicated. The contentions made

MITHILESH KUMAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Mithilesh Kumar, V The Income Tax Officer, S/O.Jagdish Singh, S Ward-4(1), Pune. Village Samaria, Post-Mujan, Polilce Station-Mohniya, Dist-Kaimur(Bhabhua), Bihar – 821109. Pan: Aqupk5114H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Mr. Snehal Sukhadia, Chartered Accountant – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/09/2024

condoned the delay and decided the case on merit. 2.1 On merits, ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer(AO) had made addition of Rs.55,17,919/- u/sec.69 of the Act alleging that assessee had deposited cash in ICICI Bank Account during Financial Year 2013-14. Ld.AR submitted that assessee do not have Bank Account in ICICI Bank. Ld.AR filed

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

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

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

133(6) of the Act from the assessee‟s bank i.e. Cosmos Co- 2 ITA No.1464/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 operative Bank, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 24.02.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on total income of Rs.58,22,072/- including three additions of – (i) Rs.35,46,931/- u/s 69A; (ii) Rs.21

BIBLE FELLOWSHIP CENTRE WAGHOLI,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

133 taxmann.com 43 (Guj HC) that delay in filing of Form No.10B is directory in nature and the same can even be furnished even at the appellate stage. Respectfully following the judicial precedent and also observing that assessee has finally furnished Audit Report on 29.10.2016 which is much prior to the culmination of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the 4 Bible

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Adhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd.) is a company engaged in trading of drip material and onions. It filed its return of income on 31.01.2013 declaring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.26,873/-. The assessment was completed

MR. VIJAY ASHOK JESWANT,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving

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

133 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the 2 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 Learned DR, the delay in filing of the instant appeal