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

ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose off by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b)of the Act The Commissioner will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

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

ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose off by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b)of the Act The Commissioner will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

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

ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No. 10B for years prior to AY. 2018-19, The commissioner of Income-tax are authorized to admit and dispose off by 31-3-2020 such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b)of the Act The Commissioner will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

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

II of the flats sold registered with the\nRegistrar show that three flats have been sold to the same family. It is on\nthe basis that, this sale was post insertion of section 80IB(10)(f) of the Act\nw.e.f. 1st April, 2010. However, we find that during regular assessment\nproceedings, for the subject Assessment Year 2011-12, the Petitioner

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

II of the flats sold registered with the\nRegistrar show that three flats have been sold to the same family. It is on\nthe basis that, this sale was post insertion of section 80IB(10)(f) of the Act\nw.e.f. 1st April, 2010. However, we find that during regular assessment\nproceedings, for the subject Assessment Year 2011-12, the Petitioner

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

3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit report not filed along with the return. We find the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and held that

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

3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit report not filed along with the return. We find the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and held that

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

3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit report not filed along with the return. We find the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and held that

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

3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit report not filed along with the return. We find the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and held that

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

3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit report not filed along with the return. We find the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and held that

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

3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit report not filed along with the return. We find the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the CIT(A) and held that

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

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

condoned. 3. We find that the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

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).

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). (iii) Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that addition of Rs.1,03,34,500/- shall become protective in assessee’s hand without examining

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI ,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 153 taxmann.com 354 (Madras); and (iii) Sahakar Maharshi Kasti Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 367/PUN/2024 (Pune-Trib.). 3. After hearing both the sides and considering their factual and legal submissions, we are of the view that the delay

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

ii) Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 153 taxmann.com 354 (Madras); and (iii) Sahakar Maharshi Kasti Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 367/PUN/2024 (Pune-Trib.). 3. After hearing both the sides and considering their factual and legal submissions, we are of the view that the delay

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

153 of the Act. The appellant has also alleged that in order to avoid the limitation period of 21 months the assessing officer, has hurriedly referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer and bought the time to that extent. However, on the basis of elaborate facts discussed earlier, I do not agree with the allegation of the appellant, Ground

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

153 of the Act. The appellant has also alleged that in order to avoid the limitation period of 21 months the assessing officer, has hurriedly referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer and bought the time to that extent. However, on the basis of elaborate facts discussed earlier, I do not agree with the allegation of the appellant, Ground