THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 249(3) permit ld.CIT(A) to admit delayed appeal if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay. 7) In these facts, lets understand the principles explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court for condonation of delay. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee

FCL GAHU KAMGAR SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANMAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1067/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Fcl Gahu Komgar Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Malegaon. New Hall, Food Corporation Of India, Tal Nangaon, Manmad. Maharashtra – 423104. Pan: Aaaaf1271D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.02.2025 For The A.Y.2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 70 of Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, 1960. 3) Books of accounts maintained & Audit of books of accounts :-Our society has maintained regular books of accounts during the course of business of the society such as cash book, ledger, bank book, loan register, loan recovery register, expenditure bills /vouchers which are duly signed by the payees & the same books

SHRIRAM GRAMIN SANSHODHAN VA VIKAS PRATISHTHAN,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.864/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ram Gramin Sanshodhan V The Income Tax Officer, Va Vikas Pratishthan, S Ward-2(1), Solapur. A/P Wadala, Tal.North Solapur, District Solapur – 413222. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadts8337H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025

condoned. 2.1 Ld.AR submitted that as per Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., vs. DDIT(Exemption) 52 taxmann.com 29 (Bombay), the Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee Trust is running various educational institutions and it is duly registered u/s.12A

KAILAS GENBHAU KALEKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2685/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kailas Genbhau Kalekar, V The Dcit, (Prop. Bhairavnath Milk S Central Circle-2(3), Pune. Processors), At Post – Kadus Taluka – Khed, Dist-Pune – 412404. Pan: Ccmpk1533J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amil Khairnar –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 28.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2685/PUN/2024 [A] “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO making addition

RAVIKIRAN GOPALRAO ALAVANDI,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravikiran Gopalrao Alavandi, V The Income Tax Officer, A-2/21, Potnis Parisar, Off S Pune. Girija Shankar Vihar, Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Acupa7585L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 17.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The Assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the delay in filing appeal can't be condoned. The ITA No.666/PUN/2025 [A] appellant prays that the delay

DEEPALI DILIP DHUMALE,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepali Dilip Dhumale, V The Income Tax Officer, 312 1, Sanchayani Bhavann S Kudal. Samor, Bazarpeth Kankavali, Sindhudurg – 416602. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeypd8193H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Raichandani –Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri P R Mane – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned

section 250 of the Income tax act 1961 dated 25.10.2023 and assessing the total income of Rs. 6,72,31,213 /- and thereby raising tax demand of Rs. 8,81,35,469/-. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in disallowing the condonation of delay, despite there being sufficient cause with the appellant

SANDEEP KRISHANCHAND GOYAL,PUNE vs. WARD 7(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1863/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sandeep Krishanchand Goyal, V Ward-7(3). S.No.48, Flat No.A-502, La S Tierra, Anand Park, Dhanori Road, Pune – 411015. Pan: Agepg0090J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Khusbu Bogawat – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Dated 06.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.07.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05.07.2025. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : ITA No.1863/PUN/2025 [A] “1. Learned Assessing Officer (AO/CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in making the addition of 331860 which has already been considered / taxed under another head, thereby resulting in double addition.” Findings

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.

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

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.

section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned, but that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him; and if the explanation does

RAVINANDA LANDMARKS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARED-5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

194 days, 346 days and 41 days respectively before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits stating that the notices of hearing were sent on email id of the Chartered Accountant Mr. P.B. Shah as well as one of the partners of Accountant. However, the said Chartered Accountant failed to make any compliance to the said notices which

RAVINANDA LANDMARKS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

194 days, 346 days and 41 days respectively before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits stating that the notices of hearing were sent on email id of the Chartered Accountant Mr. P.B. Shah as well as one of the partners of Accountant. However, the said Chartered Accountant failed to make any compliance to the said notices which

RAVINANDA LANDMARKS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

194 days, 346 days and 41 days respectively before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits stating that the notices of hearing were sent on email id of the Chartered Accountant Mr. P.B. Shah as well as one of the partners of Accountant. However, the said Chartered Accountant failed to make any compliance to the said notices which

RAVINANDA LANDMARKS UNIT 3,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

194 days, 346 days and 41 days respectively before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits stating that the notices of hearing were sent on email id of the Chartered Accountant Mr. P.B. Shah as well as one of the partners of Accountant. However, the said Chartered Accountant failed to make any compliance to the said notices which

DHONDIRAM TUKARAM BHONGE,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI

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

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

section 69A of the Income Tax Act was not called for. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact brought to his notice by appellant vide his affidavit that the account was not operated by appellant but it was operated by one shri Shivanand Dadu kumbhar

ENAYAT EBADAT HUSSAIN,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.161/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Enayat Ebadat Hussain, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.34, Gut No.20, Near S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Noori Masjid, Chunchale Amdar Satpur Ambad Link Roadk, Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Acdph9890C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare –Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 29.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.161/PUN/2025 [A] “1 The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay when the appellant was prevented by reasons beyond his control 2. The learned

M/S DHULE NANDURBAR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 4 ITA.Nos.194 & 195/PUN./2024 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

M/S DHULE NANDURBAR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 4 ITA.Nos.194 & 195/PUN./2024 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,,CHALISGAON vs. DCIT TDS NASHIK AND DCIT CPC TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

section 234E of Rs.4,000/- by stating that the appellant had failed to 2 file the quarterly statement of TDS of first quarter for financial year 2015-16 in Form No.26Q on 04.08.2015 against the due date of 15.07.2015. Therefore, there was a delay of 20 days. Accordingly, the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late

ABDUL RAUF GANI GHONE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1052/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abdul Rauf Gani Ghone, V The Income Tax Officer, Sr.No.50/1-A, Gali No.3, S Ward-14(3), Pune. Bhagyadey Nagar, Pune – 411048. Maharashtra. Pan: Afrpg3750P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak-Ar & Mrs.Archena Shetty-Advocate Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 19.02.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 07.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 19.02.2025, emanating from order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07.12.2019. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1052/PUN/2025 [A] “1. The appellant has not been served with the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) directly or by personal/postal services