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

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

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

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

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

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

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

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

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

condoned. 14. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the return of income was filed belatedly i.e. on 06.07.2015 as against the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014. There is also no dispute to the fact that the intimation order

OM J J SWA VISHWASHANTI DHAM NIRMAN SANSTHA,VERUL vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Delay in condoned.\nSubmission of ld.AR :\n3. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that Assessee Trust had\nfiled Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 declaring income at\nRs.NIL. The Centralized Processing Centre(CPC) passed an order\nu/s.143(1) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.45,02,150/-.\nAssessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed\nthe appeal

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(1). The return was selected for scrutiny as per CASS for LIMITED PURPOSE. The notices were issued u/s 142(1)/143(2). 3. The appellant could not attend the scrutiny assessments. The reason for non-attendance has been explained by the appellant in the affidavit file before the Hon'ble Tribunal along with evidences filed. The main reason

SHAILA OMPRAKASH JETHALE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1364 & 1365/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(1). The return was selected for scrutiny as per CASS for LIMITED PURPOSE. The notices were issued u/s 142(1)/143(2). 3. The appellant could not attend the scrutiny assessments. The reason for non-attendance has been explained by the appellant in the affidavit file before the Hon'ble Tribunal along with evidences filed. The main reason

ITO WARD 1, SANGLI, SANGLI vs. BALU MUSA DANGE, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.930/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Balu Musa Dange, Ward-I, Sangli. S I Dsp Office Vishrambag, Sangli. Maharashtra – 416415. Pan: Ancpd1861F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 07.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “(I) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That If The Similar Addition Is Made In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife, The Addition In Case Of Assessee Shall Become Protective. (Ii) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deciding The Issue On The Basis Of Statement Of Fact, As The Assessee Did Neither Attend Before The Ao Nor Before The Cit(A).

condonation of delay filed by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee. However, assessee failed to comply any of the notice. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) decided the case based on the statement of fact mentioned by the Assessee in the Form No.35. Ld.CIT(A) in para 5.4 and 6 held as under : “5.4 In light of the above

SHAHBAZ MOHAMMED SHAFEEQUE,MALEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, MALEGAON

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that for AY 2015-16, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: (i) Large long term Capital gain; (ii) Large

SUNITA MOHAN PATIL,NASHIK vs. ACIT 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 109 days and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed. Based on the information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that

JAGADGURU PANCHACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

condoned and it is directed that the appellant be allowed exemption as would be due to him as per law. The ld. AO is directed accordingly.” 05. Similar issue was also deal with by this Tribunal in Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust (supra), where also the facts are almost 8 identical and the assessee was given relief by this Tribunal observing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, ABCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

condonation of delay filed with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide its order dated 26/12/2018. Consequently, the surplus of Rs. 28,02,93,045/- was added to the income of the assessee. 7.2.1. The case of the present assessee has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT Pune in its judgment delivered in ACIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, NEAR HOLY CROSS ENGLISH SCHOOL vs. THE NANDED SIKHGURUDWARA SACHKHAND HAZUR SAHIB, APCHALNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

condonation of delay filed with CIT(E), Pune on 25/07/2018 was rejected by CIT(E), Pune vide its order dated 26/12/2018. Consequently, the surplus of Rs. 28,02,93,045/- was added to the income of the assessee. 7.2.1. The case of the present assessee has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT Pune in its judgment delivered in ACIT

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

section 251(2) of the Act and also erred in not the condonation of delay. 9. We have heard the rival

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

delay be condoned, and the Appeal should be taken up for hearing. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned herein above.” 7 Universal Reality 10. From the above grounds of appeal, it is manifest that the only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

251(2) of the Act. 3. The appellant had provided a reasonable cause for the delay, which was not duly appreciated Erroneous application of Section 69A of the Act 4. The addition of Rs. 52,38,245/- u/s 69A of the Act was incorrect, as the appellant was not liable to maintain the books of accounts as per section 44AA

UNUS ABDULGAFAR SHAIKH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.652 To 655/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 Unusabdulgafar Shaikh, V The Income Tax Officer, Talwadiuruli Kanchan, Pune- S. Ward-14(3), Pune. Solapur Road, Haveli, Pune – 412202. Maharashtra. Pan: Aceps8721Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Four Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.We Treat Appeal In Ita No.652/Pun/2025 As “Lead Case”. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

251(2) of the Act. 3. The appellant had provided a reasonable cause for the delay, which was not duly appreciated Erroneous application of Section 69A of the Act 4. The addition of Rs. 52,38,245/- u/s 69A of the Act was incorrect, as the appellant was not liable to maintain the books of accounts as per section 44AA