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

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

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of separate orders u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29/03/2022 & 28/03/2022 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. 2 ITA.Nos.1415 & 1416/PUN./2024 (Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji) 2. There is a delay of 163 and 164 days in filing

D.Y. PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2016 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: N.A. D.Y.Patil Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 2126, „E‟ Tarabai Park, S Income Tax(Central), Kolhapur – 416003. Pune. Pan: Aaatd8919M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Dharmesh Shah & S R Kabra – Cas Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Under Section 12Aa R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(Central) In Deciding The Issue Of Registration Of The Education Society Under 5. 12Aa Of The Act Vide His Order Dt. 24-02-2016 Erred In

condoning delay in making application for registration u/s.12A of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT has erred in not appreciating that non-consideration of the application for registration u/s.12A within the time prescribed u/s.12AA(2) of the Act would result into deemed registration to the appellant. 4. The Ld.CIT has erred in deciding the issue of registration u/s.12AA

SHREENATH MHASKOBA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal decided on merit. 5.3 The appellant during these appellate proceedings has stated that subsequent to passing of Intimation u/s 143(1) on 31.10.2018, its case was subjected to regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act which order was passed on 19.02.2021. In the said assessment order also, the same

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1 , JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

163 and 164 days in filing of ITA Nos.\n1415 & 1416/PUN/2024. Applications for condonation of\ndelay along with affidavits are placed on record. The main\nreason for delay is on account of illness of the assessee, who\nhas been diagnosed with various types of ailments and was\nunder medical treatment at Manik Hospital & Research\nCentre, Aurangabad. Considering the contentions made

NIRMALA SUNIL NAWALE,KAREGAON, TAL SHIRUR, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), PUNE, BODHI TOWERS, GULTEKADI, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs Ito, Ward Nirmala Sunil Nawale, Kk Nag Ltd, Anand Patil 13(1), Pune 86 Midc, Ranjangaon, Shirur Pune-412220 Maharashtra Pan-Almpn3657K Appellant Respondent

SECTION 144B, AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 9) THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.54,57,000/- U/S. 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BEING TIME DEPOSIT MADE AND THE HON. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CONTENTION

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay condoned. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (NEETU SACHDEVA) (MALEKAR NAGARAJ) ASTT. REGUSTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) 18. On careful reading of the above, we note that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined