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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was 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

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was 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

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

section 253 of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) or 253(2) of the Act is required to be filed within sixty days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee. The present appeal is admittedly filed with delay of 402 days as endorsed by the Registry as against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE ,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

delay commencing from the expiry of 90 days from 28/02/2022 till the institution of present cross appeal i.e. 12/07/2022. d. Needless to state that, in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) & 253(2)of the Act shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD ,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, EXEMTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED and the appeal of the Revenue is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1919/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Everest Education Society, C/O. Seema Nursing Home, Roshan Gate, Aurangabad – 431 001 Pan : Aaate2231P . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent

delay commencing from the expiry of 90 days from 28/02/2022 till the institution of present cross appeal i.e. 12/07/2022. d. Needless to state that, in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) & 253(2)of the Act shall be filed within sixty days of the date on which the order sought

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

SHIVDAS VENKAT GOMARE HUF,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Applicant; b. Pass any such further or other order/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to grant justice to the Applicant.” 4. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and gone through the averments made in the condonation

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors. in ITA No. 01/PUN/2023 dated 23.01.2023. 2.2 The Ld. DR, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there was no sufficient cause that has been demonstrated by the assessee for the said delay. He relied

SANGAMNER VIPASSANA SAMITI ,SANGAMNER vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 (Orissa); ix. Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC); x. Labricare Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT & Ors. in ITA No. 01/PUN/2023 dated 23.01.2023. 2.2 The Ld. DR, however, opposed the application for condonation of delay contending that there was no sufficient cause that has been demonstrated by the assessee for the said delay. He relied

SAUMITRA KUMAR, LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Saumitra Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Hig 111, Sector E, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024. Pan : Bcmpk7370J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Naman Maloo (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Indore [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In, Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao(Cpc) In Disallowing The Credit Of Taxes Paid Outside India While Processing The Return Of Income (Foreign Tax Credit, "Ftc") Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Such Rejection Is Beyond The Purview Of Section 143(1). The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please

condoning the delay in filing Form No. 67 by the PCIT under Section 119(2)(b), such Form No. 67 can't be taken into consideration and the relief u/s 90/90A cannot be allowed by the Appellate Authority even if other conditions are fulfilled. In view of the above, the appellant is not eligible for relief under section 90/90A

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09/06/2015 are satisfied in the case of the appellant. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in not considering the documents

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09/06/2015 are satisfied in the case of the appellant. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in not considering the documents

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09/06/2015 are satisfied in the case of the appellant. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in not considering the documents