INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under section 143(1) was sent via email, which the office bearers inadvertently failed to notice, leading to an unintentional delay in responding to the demand. Additionally

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

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

250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit

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

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

250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit

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

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

250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit

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

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

250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that the assessee produced an affidavit

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

1: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits of the case by not condoning the delay of 248 days in filing the appeal, despite the appellant providing sufficient cause for the delay. Ground No. 2: On the facts

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important to note that according

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

condoned the delay observing as under: - “2. Brief facts of the care are that as per AO, e-return of income, declaring Nil income, was filed with acknowledgement no. 982454810111009 on 1- 10-2009, after claiming deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 2,34,41,162/-. The AO denied deduction u/s 80IC on the ground that assessee had not filed

VARDHAMAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 475/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Vardhaman Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. Mahatma Gandhi Rd.,Vaijapur, Aurangabad–423701. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 19/07/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 31/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 20

250(6) of the Act, and in the absence of any substantial question of law arising out therefrom, the Hon’ble lordships have dismissed the appeal of the revenue as not entertained, thus setting no precedential value. On the other hand, the Hon’ble Apex Court in “CIT Vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria” (Supra) has dealt with issue relating

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay

DISTRICT PROBATION & AFTER CARE ASSOCIATION SATARA,SATARA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Intimation Order dated 30.11.2021 passed u/s.143(1) of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 Lucknow erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,72,07,533/-made by the learned

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