PSR SUSTAINABILITY FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

164 days in filing the appeal as the appellant has a good case on merits.” 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the applications, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the appellant to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and appellant would not have gained

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

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

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

164 taxmann.com 324 (Amritsar – Trib.)\niv) Nilesh Bharani vs. DCIT vide ITA_No.612/MUM/2020, order dated\n28.02.2023\nv)\nSmt. Samanthapudi Lavanya vs. ACIT vide ITA_No.704/VIZ/2019, order\ndated 27.04.2021\n14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted\nthat the assessment involved in the present case is assessment year 2011-12 and the\noriginal assessment

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

164 taxmann.com 324 (Amritsar – Trib.)\niv) Nilesh Bharani vs. DCIT vide ITA_No.612/MUM/2020, order dated\n28.02.2023\nv)\nSmt. Samanthapudi Lavanya vs. ACIT vide ITA_No.704/VIZ/2019, order\ndated 27.04.2021\n14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted\nthat the assessment involved in the present case is assessment year 2011-12 and the\noriginal assessment

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

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

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

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

1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act respectively framed by CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 22.10.2024 and 07.12.2024 respectively. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 223 days and 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

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

1)(ac)(iii) and approval u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act respectively framed by CIT(Exemption), Pune dated 22.10.2024 and 07.12.2024 respectively. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 223 days and 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

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

1)(c) expired on 29.02.2022 and hence, the penalty order u/s 271E passed on 12.03.2022 is barred by limitation.” 4. The assessee has filed the cross objection with a delay of 03 days. After hearing both the sides, we condone the said delay. 5. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2016-17, he filed his return

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

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