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

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

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

29, 30, 32-351\n2. The limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that\nfunction at par with other commercial banks i.e. which lend money to members of\nthe public. Thus, if the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is now to be seen, what is\nclear from section 3 read with section 56 is that

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

29, 30, 32-35]\n2. The limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that\nfunction at par with other commercial banks i.e. which lend money to members of\nthe public. Thus, if the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is now to be seen, what is\nclear from section 3 read with section 56 is that

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

condone the impugned delay. This main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. We now advert to the assessee’s pleadings of all these years to note that its former twin appeals IT(SS)A 06 & 07/Pun/2017 raise an identical issue of 2 IT(SS)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 ITA No. 609/Pun/09 Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala correctness

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

29,722/-. The case was selected for 2 scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

SMT. MANGLA RAMNIWAS MANDHANI ABMM AWAS YOJNA FOUNDATION,JALNA vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION ), EXEMPTION

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.236/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal)

condone delay in filing an application for reference under Section 60(1) of the said Act. 7 In Insp. Asst CIT vs. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla, 133 ITR 746 a 10. Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held that Section 29(2

DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICE,,UDGIR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.319/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : - Deputy Collector Office, The Jcit, Tds, Range, Main Road, Udgir, Tq.Udgir, Vs Nashik. Dist.Latur - 413517. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad Arising Out Of Assessing Officer’S Order Section 272A(2)(K) R.W.S 200(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2018. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 05/02/2014 Levied Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Delay In Filling Quarterly Statements Of Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) U/S.200(3) Of The Act.

condoned. Another plea raised by some of the assessee was that where the tax deducted at source was not paid in time, e-TDS returns as such could not be filed and hence, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing e-TDS returns in time and as such, no merit in levy of penalty. Another plea raised

MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE -NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2410/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Works Division, Parbhani-431 401 Tan : Nskm04669A .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

condoned. Another plea raised by some of the assessee was that where the tax deducted at source was not paid in time, e-TDS returns as such could not be filed and hence, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in not filing e- TDS returns in time and as such, no merit in levy of penalty. Another plea raised

FATIMABAI HAJIMIYA KOKANI PVT TRUST.,NASHIK vs. ITO (EXEP) WARD 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh 3 Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt. Trust Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee‟s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. We notice at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from 835 days delay in filing, which has been stated to be attributable to various communication gaps as well

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

29,429/-. Apart from this, it was also noticed by Ld. PCIT, that the Assessing Officer has levied interest of Rs.20,644/- only instead of correct amount of interest of Rs.1,59,997/-. Accordingly, 4 there is a short levy of interest of Rs.1,39,353/-. For all these reasons , Ld. PCIT was of the view that the assessment order

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

29-09-2017 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue. Mr. Jain’s first and foremost arguments challenges the foregoing reassessment itself as not sustainable in law since the assessing officer had initiated the same regarding income of trust chargeable to tax of Rs.4,89,491/- whereas he ended up in adding only corpus donation

KOLHAPUR MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

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

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

section 249(2). The discretion is to be exercised not on any arbitrary or fanciful grounds or whim or caprice of the first appellate authority, but it is to be a judicial discretion. The discretion is obviously to be exercised where "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within time is made out by the appellant (Cf. Mohd. Ashfaq

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