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

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

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD), ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

166/- and disallowance on account of commission paid to L.K. Jain (HUF) of Rs.43,20,707/-. Out of the above disallowances, we are concerned with the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The factual background of the above disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is as under :- During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

166/- and disallowance on account of commission paid to L.K. Jain (HUF) of Rs.43,20,707/-. Out of the above disallowances, we are concerned with the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The factual background of the above disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) is as under :- During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 166 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition towards notional rent income at Rs.44,43,100/- from letting out house property. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee

VARVADE PANCHKROSHI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,RATANAGIRI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2349/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Varvade Panchkroshi Shikshan Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur At Post Varawade, Waravade, Ratnagiri – 415620 Maharashtra Pan : Aaatv7973M Appellant Respondent

166 taxmann.com 524) (ITAT Bangalore) 3. After hearing both the sides and having gone through the averments made in the condonation application and considering the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Courts, we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay

MUSLIM FOUNDATION FOR RENAISSANCE KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR vs. JURISDICTIONAL AO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of a delay in filing Form 10B for the year under consideration, without appreciating that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts

DAYANAND FOUDATION ,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result ITA No. 2330/PUN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2330&2542/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Dayanand Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune G Wing, Flat No. 501, Sr No.136/1A, 5A, 5B Marvel, Vs. Hadapsar Pune-411028 Maharashtra Pan-Aactd9309F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare (Through Virtual) Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 & 16.11.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(E), Pune Under Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry Has Informed That Ita 2330/Pun/2024 Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 166 Days. Affidavit Along With Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. Perusal Of The Same Indicates That Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) & Also Taking A Liberal & Justice Oriented Approach The Delay In Filing The Appeal In Ita No. 2330/Pun/2024 Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry has informed that ITA 2330/PUN/2024 has been filed with a delay of 166 days. Affidavit along with application for condonation

DAYANAND FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result ITA No. 2330/PUN/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2330&2542/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: Na Dayanand Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune G Wing, Flat No. 501, Sr No.136/1A, 5A, 5B Marvel, Vs. Hadapsar Pune-411028 Maharashtra Pan-Aactd9309F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Deepa Khare (Through Virtual) Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12-08-2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- The Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 & 16.11.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(E), Pune Under Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry Has Informed That Ita 2330/Pun/2024 Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 166 Days. Affidavit Along With Application For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record. Perusal Of The Same Indicates That Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Placing Reliance On The Judgement Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Master Katiji & Others(1987) 167 Itr 471(Sc) (Supreme Court) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Dated 21.03.2025 (2025) Insc 382) & Also Taking A Liberal & Justice Oriented Approach The Delay In Filing The Appeal In Ita No. 2330/Pun/2024 Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry has informed that ITA 2330/PUN/2024 has been filed with a delay of 166 days. Affidavit along with application for condonation

GUNJ FOUNDATION ,NASHIK vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.914/Pun/2025 Gunj Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), Pune House No. 247, Block No. 56, Upnagar Colony, Nashik-422006 Vs. Pan : Aafag0861K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement :

section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). 2. There is a delay of 166 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

166 TAxmann 188 (SC) 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.PCIT and referred and relied on the following two decisions : 1. PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) 2. Discoverture Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 262 (Orissa) 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1), , PUNE vs. M/S CAPEGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES I LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGAGE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1), M/S.Capegemini Technology Pune. Vs Services India Ltd., (Formerly . Known As Igate Global Solutions Ltd., ) Plot No.114, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase- Iii, Midc Sez, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aabcm 4573 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe –Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Appeals For A.Y.2005-06 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order, Dated 09.03.2020 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-1/Dcit Circ.1(1)/77/2013-14/38, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

section (4) to mean the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. The Co-ordinate Bench opined when there exists a direct link between

SANDVIK AB,PUNE vs. ACIT (INTL TAXATION), CIR-2, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.18/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

sections 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 166 days. The ld. AR stated that the delay pertains to Covid-19 Pandemic and hence, covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest\n/dividend received by a co-operative society from its investments in another co-\noperative society. He relied on the following decisions :\na. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs\nACIT (421 ITR 134).\nb. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs Totagurs

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest\n/dividend received by a co-operative society from its investments in another co-\noperative society. He relied on the following decisions :\na. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs\nACIT (421 ITR 134).\nb. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs Totagurs