DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and take up the Cross objections for disposal on merits. A.Y. 2008-09 : 6. The first legal issue raised by the assessee in its cross objection is as under: “Validity of the Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income- tax Act. 1961: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION OF INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

delay of one day is thus, condoned. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,04,01,599/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee company was engaged in the business of software development. Since the assessee had entered into

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.577/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

delay of one day is thus, condoned. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,04,01,599/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee company was engaged in the business of software development. Since the assessee had entered into

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

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

234B and 234C is not justified. 4. All the appeals were filed after delay of seven days, for which the assessee has pointed out that there was calculation error in number of days and also because of ending days being Saturday and Sunday. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. In view of the above contention of assessee

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

234B and 234C is not justified. 4. All the appeals were filed after delay of seven days, for which the assessee has pointed out that there was calculation error in number of days and also because of ending days being Saturday and Sunday. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. In view of the above contention of assessee

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

234B and 234C is not justified. 4. All the appeals were filed after delay of seven days, for which the assessee has pointed out that there was calculation error in number of days and also because of ending days being Saturday and Sunday. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. In view of the above contention of assessee

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

234B and 234C is not justified. 4. All the appeals were filed after delay of seven days, for which the assessee has pointed out that there was calculation error in number of days and also because of ending days being Saturday and Sunday. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. In view of the above contention of assessee

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

234B and 234C is not justified. 4. All the appeals were filed after delay of seven days, for which the assessee has pointed out that there was calculation error in number of days and also because of ending days being Saturday and Sunday. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. In view of the above contention of assessee

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