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

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

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

164 tamann.com 740 (Ahmedabad Tribu) Sunpack Barrier Films (P.) Ltd., Vs. A.Director of Income Tax [2024] 162 taxmann.com 200 (Ahmedabad Tribu) Submission of ld.DR : 4. The ld.DR for the Revenue filed copy of the CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024 and submitted that the power to condone the delay in filing Form No.10-IC is with ld.CCIT and ld.Pr.CIT. Findings & Analysis

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

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

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 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, 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

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

2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) 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

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

SUNILKUMAR R. MITTAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9 (1),, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Delay of 2 days is condoned in light of the assessee’s affidavit dated 10-03-2022 explaining reasons thereof to be neither intentional nor deliberate. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore. Heard both sides. Case file perused. 2 Sunilkumar R. Mittal 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that

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

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

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