SUJATABAI SHESHERAO BANSODE,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 4, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar Atp & Tq Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. Pan : Aplpb6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Learned Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Appeal On The Ground That The Reasons For Delay Are Not Found To Be Satisfactory. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Has & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reasons For Delay Were Beyond The Control Of The Appellant & Were Genuine For Which The Delay Ought To Have Be Condoned & Appeal Ought To Have Decided On Merits.

234B,and 234C is not justified. 8] The Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter, delete any of the above grounds of Appeal.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an agriculturist residing in remote village area, namely, Bhim Nagar, Ahemedpur. The case of the assessee was reopened

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

234B of INR 66,02,052, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Excess levy of interest under section 234C of the Act and ITA.No.2800/PUN/2024 Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited 14. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 39,34,599 as against Interest

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

234B of INR 66,02,052, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Excess levy of interest under section 234C of the Act and ITA.No.2800/PUN/2024 Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited 14. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 39,34,599 as against Interest

LIONS NAB COMMUNITY EYECARE CENTRE, MIRAJ,SANGLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions Nab Community Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Eyecare Centre, Plot No.P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli- 416410. Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated In M.A. No.151/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.257/Pun/2022 Dated 06.01.2023 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue De Novo. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly

delay not condoned. However, the subsequent act of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deciding the case on merits upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. On perusal of the record, it is observed that DCIT(CPC) has not made any disallowance or not added

RAMESH GARWARE CHARITY TRUST,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), 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.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condonation of delay in filing of income tax return as directed by the CBDT Circular No. 6/2020 dated 19.2.2020 ITA No.776/PUN/2025 [A] 4. Ground No.4 Interest u/sec. 2348 and 234C The said CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming interest charged of Rs.495,948/-under section 234B

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

234B of the Act; Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 11. erred in initiating the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation

ADESH TULSHIRAM MHATRE,DISTRICT RAIGAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

condonation of delay and denied natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order and without adjudicating grounds of appeal on merit. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.3

V.R. SUKHWANI PROJECTS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1750/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 V.R.Sukhwani Projects, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.B-1205, S Circle-2, Pune Amar Business Zone, Baner, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqfv3888H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Miss Sailee Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 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 The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,70,547/- and Rs. 59,803/- respectively and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 4. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or raise any additional ground or grounds of appeal or delete or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” Findings & Analysis

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.\n7.\nYour appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.\nDelay condonation :\n1.1 There is a delay

P.K.D.N.N. HUTATMA KISAN AHIR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2,, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟ Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We notice at the outset that both these assessee‟s appeals suffer from 515 and 71 days delay, respectively in filing stated to be attributable to unavoidable circumstances and various procedural aspects at the assessee

P.K.D.N.N. HUTATMA KISAN AHIR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟ Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We notice at the outset that both these assessee‟s appeals suffer from 515 and 71 days delay, respectively in filing stated to be attributable to unavoidable circumstances and various procedural aspects at the assessee

VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY ASIA P LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT(IT), CIR-2, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.27/Pun/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vishay Intertechnology Asia Pte Ltd., 37A Tampines Street 92, #7-01, Singapore – 528886 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaecv5885F बनधम / V/S.

234B of the Act; Initiation of penalty under section 271 (1)(C) of the Act erred in the initiation of penalty proceedings on the above u/s 271(1)(c). Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted. The Appellant craves leave

NANDKUMAR BABAN SASTE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (“Act”), which is arising out of assessment order u/s.147\nr.w.s.144 of the Act, dated 30/03/2022 by the ITO,\nWard-8(3), Pune, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.\n\n2. Registry has informed that this appeal is barred by\nlimitation by 259 days. Application for condonation of delay\nalong with affidavit

KISHOR JAGANNATH SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2196/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Etaps5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. There Is A Delay Of 176 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Live Law (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal.

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the order passed under section 250 by CITIA) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal without sending physical hearing notices to appellant is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 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 The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the primary addition itself is unjustified and liable to be deleted, the consequential interest charges are also unwarranted and liable to be deleted. 3 ITA No.2225/PUN/2025 [A] The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds, or to submit additional legal/factual grounds

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

234B on the assessed income and accordingly appellant denies the levy of such interest in the demand raised u/s 156 of the Act. 8. The appellant prays that The intimation order u/s 143(1) confirmed by CIT(A) disallowing deduction claimed under 801A of chapter VIA of Rs. 67,25,250/- may please be deleted. 9. Appellant seeks, permission

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE vs. SHIVAI VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and directed the Ld. CPC/AO to delete the addition made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. Addl./JCIT

RAJHANS NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MOGALPURA vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1773/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajhans Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S. Ward-2, Pune. 1, Mogalpura, Sangamner, Tal-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar – 422605. Pan: Aaaar3555J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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.2018-19, Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.154 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him despite there being a reasonable cause explained during the course of appellate proceedings as well as by way of affidavit and hence the appeal of the Appellant may please be admitted, adjudicated on merits and the additions made may please be deleted 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

GOURAV BHAGWANDAS AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(1), PUNE

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

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant for non-prosecution. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 2 ITA No.894/PUN/2025