INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

153 taxmann.com 687 (Kolkata – Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assesse trust filed return after time allowed under section 139(4A) but before last day of filing of belated return under section 139(5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

153 taxmann.com 687 (Kolkata – Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assesse trust filed return after time allowed under section 139(4A) but before last day of filing of belated return under section 139(5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

153 taxmann.com 687 (Kolkata – Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where assesse trust filed return after time allowed under section 139(4A) but before last day of filing of belated return under section 139(5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section

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

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

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condoned the Delay. However, here onwards we are discussing the merits of the case. 8. In this case, Assessee is a Charitable Trust duly registered u/s.12A of the Act. Copy of the said order has been filed by the Assessee. The Assessing Officer in an order u/s.143(3) rejected assessee’s claim for exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The relevant

GAURAV RAJA PATHAK,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

153 taxmann.com 354 (Madras) in a recent decision. Thus, the appeal filed by appellant is not maintainable as the same is filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s 249 of the IT Act for filing of appeal and there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, which can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant

BHUJBAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee stand DISMISSED on above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0756/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bhujbal Construction Company Gat No. 12/29, Someshwar Wadi, Pashan, Haveli, Baner Rd., Pune. Pan: Aaffb7317L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)Pune-1. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

153 Taxmann.com 354 (Mad)] 6. Without going into grounds of appeal and merits of the case, we have heard Ld. DR on this limited issue of delay condonation and subject to rule 18 of ITAT- Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the relevant facts & circumstance concerning the delay, judicial precedents relied upon. 7. We note that

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing is condoned as per the principles of natural justice. 7.2 The appellant, instead of availing the opportunity to explain the sources for cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing is condoned as per the principles of natural justice. 7.2 The appellant, instead of availing the opportunity to explain the sources for cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing is condoned as per the principles of natural justice. 7.2 The appellant, instead of availing the opportunity to explain the sources for cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay in filing is condoned as per the principles of natural justice. 7.2 The appellant, instead of availing the opportunity to explain the sources for cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated

ITO WARD 1, SANGLI, SANGLI vs. BALU MUSA DANGE, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.930/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Balu Musa Dange, Ward-I, Sangli. S I Dsp Office Vishrambag, Sangli. Maharashtra – 416415. Pan: Ancpd1861F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 07.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “(I) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That If The Similar Addition Is Made In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife, The Addition In Case Of Assessee Shall Become Protective. (Ii) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deciding The Issue On The Basis Of Statement Of Fact, As The Assessee Did Neither Attend Before The Ao Nor Before The Cit(A).

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. AO made an addition of Rs.1,21,41,699/-. 2 3.1 Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) which was delayed by 153 days. 3.2 The ld.CIT(A) condoned

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

delay, the\ndelay in filing is condoned as per the principles of natural justice.\n7.2 The appellant, instead of availing the opportunity to explain the\nsources for cash deposits, wanted to thrash the entire reassessment\nproceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of\nknowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This\nattitude of the appellant