ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. Similarly in absence of any valid explanation regarding the discrepancy in respect of the property sold, the Assessing Officer applied the profit rate of 12% on the sale of property at 6,45,19,025/- and made addition of Rs.77,42,284/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

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

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

SWARGIYA SHRIRAM SHAKARLALJI RANDAD CHARITABLE TRUST ,SATARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.582/Pun/2025

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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub- serving

VARVADE PANCHKROSHI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,RATANAGIRI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2349/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Varvade Panchkroshi Shikshan Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur At Post Varawade, Waravade, Ratnagiri – 415620 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatv7973M Appellant Respondent

159 taxmann.com 570) (ITAT Mumbai) 6. Sri Suhas Suresh Shet v. ITO, International Taxation (140 taxmann.com 96) (ITAT Bangalore) 7. Dhalavaipalayam Primary Agriculture Coop Credit Society Ltd v. ITO-1(3), Tirupur (110 taxmann.com 52) (Madras HC) 8. Sarvadeivatha Education Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) (166 taxmann.com 524) (ITAT Bangalore) 3. After hearing both the sides and having gone through

SAJID DASTAGIR SAYYED,LATUR vs. WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

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

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,70,530/- U/s 69A of I.T. Act. made by the A.O. is erroneous as CIT(A) has not considered any grounds of appeal made by appellant

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

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of land development and real estate broking. He filed his return of income on 28.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.8,08,880/-. A search action

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 :

159 taxmann.com 178(Bombay) dated 29.01.2024 held as under : ―1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of-course Petitioner has also impugned the notice dated 17th March 2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Various grounds

MUKUNDA PANDIT CHAUGULE,PANDHURLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3194/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli S Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 Pan: Atepc5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 26.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 20.04.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

delay is condoned. Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee filed paper book. Ld.AR pleaded only with respect to Ground No.3 which is a Legal Ground. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer &ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records

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

ARJUN BHAGARAM PARMAR,RATNAGIRI vs. WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.115/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arjun Bhagaram Parmar, Vs Ward-1, Room No. 11, Swar Vihar, Ratnagiri Garah Sankulan Sarang, Khend, Tal-Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpm4825M Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 930 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information about large cash deposit during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, observe that the assessee has not filed return of income

TRUMPF (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(5), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.442/Pun/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

condone the delay in filing the instant appeal and admit the same for disposal on merits. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in providing after-sales support and market support services in respect of machines sold by its foreign related entities in the territory of SAARC region. The assessee also carries out Trading

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

159/- and further, Ld, Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the same.\n9.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or delete any of the\naforesaid grounds.\n9.\nThe assessee has also filed an additional ground in ITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nwhich reads as under:\n“The reassessment order passed by the Ld AO U/Sec. 143(3) r.w.s.147