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

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

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Delay is condoned by CBDT. 10.1 The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aprameyha Engineering Ltd., Vs. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 740 has held as under : “8.1 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 721 held that provision of section

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1414/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay of 164 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. The ld. Authorised Representative submits that the assessment order is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2021 and the assessment order was passed on 31.03.2022. It is submitted that the period of six years from the end of the relevant

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

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

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

condone the delay of\n163 & 164 days in filing of the instant appeals in ITA Nos.\n1415 & 1416/PUN/2024 respectively before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeals for adjudication.\n3. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are\ncommon, first we take up ITA No. 1415/PUN/2024 for A.Y.\n2014-15 as a lead case. The modified grounds of appeal raised

SARASWATI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2 AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Without prejudice to the other grounds and on the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition so made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without

KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

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

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

condoning the delay from the date of creation of the trust. Accordingly, the accounts were audited. The audit report in Form No IOB was filed alongwith the accounts and return claiming its income as exempt us. 11 of the Act. iii) The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment found that the trust had tame exemption u/s.11

PREM BHAKTI SADHANA KENDRA,NASHIK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

164 days in presenting the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed Applications for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation applications, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee prevented the assessee in filing the instant appeals within the stipulated

PREM BHAKTI SADHANA KENDRA,NASHIK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

164 days in presenting the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed Applications for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation applications, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee prevented the assessee in filing the instant appeals within the stipulated

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay of 237 days is condoned in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). 3. Brief facts of the case

SUBHADRA EDUCATION & RESEARCH CENTRE,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

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

delay of 50 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust engaged in providing pre-primary and primary education for the benefit of all sections of society and has furnished its return of income on 16.12.2020 declaring Nil income. The case was selected

JALINDER TATYASAHEB DESHMUKH,,BEED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2679/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Jalindertatyasaheb The Commissioner Of Income Deshmukh, Vs Tax, Aurangabad. Anusaya Construction Company, Vidyanagar Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed – 431515. Pan: Adwpd 6423 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 24.03.2014.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit-Aurangabad Was Not Justified In Passing The Revisionary Order Under S. 263 Of The Act When The Original Assessment Order Passed By The A. 0. Cannot Be Branded As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue Since The Perusal Of The Said Assessment Reveals That The Full Investigation Was Made Calling For The Entire Information Needed For Framing The Assessment. The Revisionary Order Is Not Sustainable In Law. It Be Quashed.

condoning the delay. 5. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, none appeared on behalf of the appellant assessee. ITA No.2679/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 Shri JalinderTatyasaheb Deshmukh(A) 2.1 It is observed that on following occasions, none had appeared for hearing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

condone the said delay. 5. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2016-17, he filed his return of income on 16.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.1,57,63,230/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under 3 ITA No.269/PUN/2024 & CO No. 15/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 CASS and the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment