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

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

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

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

APPASO SAMPATRAO MANE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, despite the\nappellant being non resident and explained sufficient cause for the delay by way\nof an affidavit.\n1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant, an NRI\nresiding in the USA since 2014, did not access his registered email provided to\nPAN Database, after

SUYASH SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suyash Solutions Pvt. Ltd., V The Dy.Cit, S.No.145, Pune Saswad Road, S. Circle-5, Pune. Opp,.Navalakha Godown, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Maharashtra. Pan: Aajcs7144M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mihir C Naniwadekar & Shri B.D.Bhide – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Gurugram Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2010-11, Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(1) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 23.02.2011. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

145, Pune Saswad Road, s. Circle-5, Pune. Opp,.Navalakha Godown, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Maharashtra. PAN: AAJCS7144M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mihir C Naniwadekar and Shri B.D.Bhide – AR’s Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 17/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 12/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

delay be condoned, and the Appeal should be taken up for hearing. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned herein above.” 7 Universal Reality 10. From the above grounds of appeal, it is manifest that the only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD), ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

PARRY PHYTOREMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED, (E.I.D. PARRY INDIA LIMITED),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.20/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Parry Phytoremedies Private Limited (Now Known As E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited) S.No.73/2, Shivane Industrial Estate, Warje, Nda Rd, Nr Agarwal Godown, Pune – 411023 Pan: Aaccp9589J . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 4, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. A. Gundecha Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 01/02/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 24/02/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 17

delay in instituting the present appeal, reiterated its contents and prayed for condonation, which the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] objected for unconvincing reasons. Insofar as the substantive ground is concerned, the Ld. AR patiently briefed the bench with applicable provisions of refund under respective Indirect Tax Laws and submitted that, the decision to write-off the balance

THE PRAKASHCHAND JAIN MULTI STATE CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,JAMNER vs. ITO WARD 1(4) JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 145 days. Ld.AR submitted that an elaborate reasoning has been given by the Assessee in Form No.35 and requested the ld.CIT(A) to condone

THE PRAKASHCHAND JAIN MULTI STATE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAMNER vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 145 days. Ld.AR submitted that an elaborate reasoning has been given by the Assessee in Form No.35 and requested the ld.CIT(A) to condone

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN MULTI STATE CO.OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,JAMNER vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1791, 1801 & 1802/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2014-15 & 2018-19 The Prakashchand Jain Multi V The Income Tax Officer, State Co-Operative Credit S Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Society Ltd., Mayur Complex, Bajrangpura Road, Jamner, Jalgaon – 424206. Pan: Aaaap4677K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay Kawdia – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 10.07.2024, A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2018-19 Dated 09.07.2024 Respectively. Since The Issue Involved Is Common & Facts Are Identical, All The Three Appeals

section 80P(2)(a) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that there was a delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) of 145 days. Ld.AR submitted that an elaborate reasoning has been given by the Assessee in Form No.35 and requested the ld.CIT(A) to condone

TIRUMALA CONSTRUCTION ,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , NASHIK

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

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

145 days. The appellant furnished an application along with an affidavit praying for condonation of delay in the circumstances mentioned therein. Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the averments made in the 2 above affidavit. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons mentioned by the assessee constitute reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed time

SAYYAD MAKSOOD ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition

SAYYAD RAFIQ ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

condone the impugned delay in all these cases. These five appeals are taken up for hearing on merits therefore. 3. Next comes assessees’ identical substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their interest income(s); involving varying sum(s), received u/s 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition