MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 17

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 17

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal:- As mentioned above, the appeal against the order under section 147r.w.s144r.w.s144Bdated 17-03-2023 served

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

17 orders are being appealed\nagainst along with this appeal. Therefore, there is an unavoidable delay\nin the matter.\n5. There is admittedly a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said delay is bonafide and\nunintentional.\n6. If the delay in filing the present appeal is not condoned, it would not\nrender

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condonation of the said delay for the reason that the assessee has not furnished genuine reason for filing delayed appeal. He, however, further proceeded to decide the case on merits on the basis of material available on record and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO by observing as under

VARDHAMAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 475/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Vardhaman Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. Mahatma Gandhi Rd.,Vaijapur, Aurangabad–423701. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 19/07/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 31/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 20

section 253(5) of the Act. 15. Keeping in view the propositions of law laid down by the judicial precedents relating to condonation of delay and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of present case as discussed above, in our considered view the appellantis found to be casual, non- serious and non-vigilant in preferring appeal

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. Representations have been received by the Board/field authorities stating that Form no.10B could not be filed along with the return of income for AY 2016- 17 and AY 2017-18. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form no.10B may be condoned

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

17,10,000/-. The assessee had deducted an amount of Rs.34,29,429/- i.e. 1/3rd of Rs.1,02,88,286/- towards expenses paid to one Mr. Shevale for acquiring access for entry into the land. Expenses incurred for acquiring access outside the land sold cannot be considered as expenses incurred for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 48. According

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 11, since assessee had already filed audit report in Form 10B electronically during pendency of appellate proceedings along with copy of audited financial statements, delay in filing said form was to be condoned. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely to the facts

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 249(3) for CIT(A) to condone the delay. 17. The series of decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 249(3) for CIT(A) to condone the delay. 17. The series of decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

17(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) and also the provisos of section 13(9) of the Act which mandates filing of Form 10 on or before due date specified under section 139(1) for furnishing return of income. Thus, vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2019, the assessee was asked to explain why its accumulation of Rs.80

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay