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

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

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

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

section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.55,574/- u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 171 days along with a condonation application explaining that the said delay was due to negligence on the part of the Tax Consultant. However, Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC

MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

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

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

section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.55,574/- u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 171 days along with a condonation application explaining that the said delay was due to negligence on the part of the Tax Consultant. However, Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC

RUHEENA BEGUM SHAIKH AMIR,,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act). 3. At the very outset, the ld. A.R submitted that there is a delay of 90 days. The period is covered in assessee’s case by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

SH DASHANEMA MANGAL KARYALAYA MANDAL,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

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

Bench: Covid-19 Pandemic Outbreak Period. Therefore, He Strongly Objected For Condonation Of This Delay.

206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 since the delay was covering pandemic outbreak period, we condone the same and the case is heard on merits. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust and is formed vide trust deed dated 26-11-1952. The trust is engaged in the activities relating to organizing religious and social

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. KAPURBA AND COMPANY, BARSHI, SOLAPUR

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

206 days. After hearing both the parties, we condone the said delay. 5. The Revenue raised six grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in holding non-applicability of section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), AKURDI vs. VASANTRAO NAIK NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, ALEPHATA

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No

delay is condoned and the instant appeals are admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. 4. That

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD- 10(1),, AKURDI vs. SHRI SAINATH NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, AMBEGAON

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No

delay is condoned and the instant appeals are admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. 4. That

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH KRISHNARAO SAPTARSHI,, PUNE

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

206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021. We accordingly condone the impugned delay. The assessee’s cross objection No.47/PUN/2022 is taken up for adjudication on merits which raises the following pleadings: “1. Learned CIT(A)-4), Pune and learned AO erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that, the rightful year of transfer of the slum property situated

SADGURU GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT MOHOL,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated

SASKA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated

TULJARAM CHTATURCHAND MAHAVIDYALAYA SEVAKANCHI SAHA PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 14 (5), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated

PUNE ZILHA MADHYAWARTI SAHAKARI BANK KARAMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3, , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated

PRATIK TUKARAM SURYAWANSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.287 & 288/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20

delay is condoned by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. The instant appeals are, ergo, admitted for disposal on merits

PRATIK TUKARAM SURYAWANSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.287 & 288/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20

delay is condoned by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314. The instant appeals are, ergo, admitted for disposal on merits