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

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

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

THE SIRUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

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

1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 31st December, 2021 vide Circular No.9/2021 dated 20-5-2021, is hereby further extended to 28th February, 2022; 6. The duedate of furnishing of belated/revised Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which is 31st December, 2021 under sub-section (4)/sub-section (5) of section

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

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act on 22nd August, 2018. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act but CPC denied the exemption because audit report on From10B was e-filed belatedly on 23rd March, 2020, i.e., after filing of income tax return. The assessee also filed a condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) to learned Pr. Chief Commissioner

ONLY B2B ITES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1197/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

161 days and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is mentioned in the affidavit signed by the Director of the assessee company which is mainly on account of non-communication of the assessment order as it was not emailed on the correct email ID. Prayer made to restore the issue on merits

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoned the delay considering that the delay was not inordinate and it was owing to the severe illness of the Chartered Accountant of the assessee who was handling the case of the assessee as stated in the affidavit of the assessee. So far as, the merits of the case is concerned, we find that the impugned issue is squarely covered

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

condone the delay of 445\ndays in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeal for adjudication.\n4. Since most of the grounds raised in these two appeals are\ncommon, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of\nconsolidated order for the sake of convenience.\n5. We will first take up ITA No.1183/PUN/2023 relating

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 161 days are condoned. 3. Since, the issues raised in all these 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 assessee