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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

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 Income-tax Officer and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by issuing the circular dated February 9, 1978, has treated the provisions regarding furnishing of the auditor

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

148 on 19.03.2018 as he has reason to believe that the assessee’s income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. The assessee in response to the above notice furnished his return of income on 19.12.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.14,52,720/- which consists of long term capital gain of Rs.12,66,673/-. Notices

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

148 was issued in thepresent case in violation of provision of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, the initiationof proceedings itself is without any jurisdiction. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.05.2023 is hereby quashed.‖ 7.4 Accordingly, for all the reasons mentioned above

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

148 of the Act after recording the reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority was re-opened for assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee vide notice dt. 30/03/2019 was called upon to furnish return of income in relation to salary earned and explain the nature & source of investment

PRASANNA SHRIKANT PATANKAR,SATARA vs. ITO WD NO - 04, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

condoned the delay. 10. In the case of Dr.Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, on perusal of the Affidavit and pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient cause for delay. 11. In this case, the important fact which has been submitted by Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) which has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A) in paragraph

ANANDA GORAKHANATH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 3, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

delay to filing the Appeal should not be condoned especially when he had dealt with all the issues in Appellate Order. 3. The learned CIT has erred both in facts and in law in not dealing with other issues on merits. 4. The Assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

148 of the Act was issued on 18.03.2020. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the same. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates asking the assessee to file return for assessment year 2013-14 as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee was also served a copy

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

148 of the Act was issued on 18.03.2020. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the same. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on various dates asking the assessee to file return for assessment year 2013-14 as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee was also served a copy

SHIVDAS VENKAT GOMARE HUF,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing the Appeal may be condoned based on the following grounds, each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to the other. 5. No interest received in FY 2016-17, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur, erroneously deducted TDS under Section 194A of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,80,422/- (Rupees Forty-Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.\n7.\nYour appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.\nDelay condonation :\n1.1 There is a delay of 16 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission and found that there

MR. VIJAY BAJIRAO BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be held that the addition of Rs.22,68,500/- so made

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI CAMP AT PARBHANI, PARBHANI vs. RAJARAM RAMSWARUP JAJU, SELU PARBHANI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1882/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ito, Ward Hingoli Camp At Vs. Rajaram Ramswarup Parbhani, Parbhani. Jaju, 223, Jaju Industries Atre Nagar, Selu, Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.35//Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1882/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajaram Ramswarup Jaju, Vs. Ito, Ward Hingoli 223, Jaju Industries Atre Camp At Parbhani, Nagar, Selu, Parbhani. Parbhani- 431503. Pan : Aakpj4951H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Assessee By : Shri Anand R. Partani & Shri Darshan R. Gattani Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

condone the delay of 61 days and admit the cross objection for adjudication. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is justified. However, it was also submitted that the assessee has raised legal ground no.2 before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was not decided