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

condonation of delay in case where the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. 39. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions

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

condonation of delay in case where the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. 39. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions

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

condonation of delay in case where the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. 39. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions

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

condonation of delay in case where the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. 39. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions

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

condonation of delay in case where the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. 39. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions

BLUE RIDGE UNIT B TOWER 9 TO 14,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(4),PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

condonation petition without giving due weight to the genuine reasons for delay, which warranted indulgence in the interest of justice. 1.3 BECAUSE such approach disregarded the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 03.03.2025 and the consequential order giving effect thereto dated 20.05.2025, which had already upheld the assessee's entitlement to Section 80P deduction

BLUE RIDGE UNIT B TOWER 9 TO 14,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(4),PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

condonation petition without giving due weight to the genuine reasons for delay, which warranted indulgence in the interest of justice. 1.3 BECAUSE such approach disregarded the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 03.03.2025 and the consequential order giving effect thereto dated 20.05.2025, which had already upheld the assessee's entitlement to Section 80P deduction

BLUE RIDGE UNIT B TOWER 9 TO 14,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(4),PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

condonation petition\nwithout giving due weight to the genuine reasons for delay, which\nwarranted indulgence in the interest of justice.\n1.3 BECAUSE such approach disregarded the orders of the CIT(A),\nNFAC, Delhi dated 03.03.2025 and the consequential order giving\neffect thereto dated 20.05.2025, which had already upheld the\nassessee's entitlement to Section 80P deduction

PASHANKAR AUTO WORKS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.420/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pashankar Auto Works Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), S.No.45/1, Dehu Road, Pune Katraj-Bypass, Baner, Pune 411 015, Maharashtra Pan : Aaecp8466C Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay. We are in agreement with the argument of the ld. AR that, for computing the period of limitation, the date of knowledge of the order alone has to be reckoned and not the date on which the order has been passed. Further, we find that the appellant company had the knowledge of passing of the impugned order

D.Y. PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2016 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: N.A. D.Y.Patil Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 2126, „E‟ Tarabai Park, S Income Tax(Central), Kolhapur – 416003. Pune. Pan: Aaatd8919M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Dharmesh Shah & S R Kabra – Cas Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Under Section 12Aa R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(Central) In Deciding The Issue Of Registration Of The Education Society Under 5. 12Aa Of The Act Vide His Order Dt. 24-02-2016 Erred In

section 12AA r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(Central) in deciding the issue of registration of the Education society under 5. 12AA of the Act vide his order

KAI KASHINATH POSATE BAHUUDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA UDGIR,UDGIR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.938/Pun/2023

condonation of delay remain uncontroverted. There is no material on record to disbelieve the averments made by the appellant trust. Further, we find that the appellant trust had the knowledge of passing of the impugned order only on 10.08.2023 and the appeal came to be filed on 23.08.2023. It is trite law that for the purpose of reckoning the period

SAHAKAR BHUSHAN VASANT SARVA SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.350/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sahakar Bhushan Vasant Sarva Vs. Income Tax Officer, Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ward-1, Sangli Shinde Chowk, Mhaisal, Vijay Nagar, Mhaisal S.O., Sangli – 416409, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaav2175L Appellant Respondent

254/- has been denied on account of delay in filing the return of income and invoked section 80AC of the Act. Assessee has filed an application for condonation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

PARMESHWAR PARAM SEVA FOUNDATION,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal. 3 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application for registration in Form No. 10AB u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act on 21.04.2023 along with annexures. The Ld. CIT(E) pursuant to the said application called for certain

SHAKUNTALA DNYANDEV SALUNKHE,MAHARASTHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , ICHALKARANJI, MAHARASTHRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2844 & 2847/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17

condone the delay, if any, in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Here, we would like to make reference to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in W.P.(C) No.402/2020, dt. 13-01-2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that "A person

SHAKUNTALA DNYANDEV SALUNKHE,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, ICHALKARANJI, MAHARASTHRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2844 & 2847/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2016-17

condone the delay, if any, in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Here, we would like to make reference to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in W.P.(C) No.402/2020, dt. 13-01-2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that "A person

SANT JAGANADE MAHARAJ SHIKSHAN MANDAL,SINDKHEDE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NSK, NAHSIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1754/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Sant Jaganade Maharaj V The Income Tax Officer, Shikshan Mandal, S. Exemption, Ward-1(1), Sr No.190/1, Plot No.38, Nashik. Dondaicha So., Sindkhede, Dhule – 425408. Maharashrtra. Pan: Aaabs1484Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption) Dated 05.11.2024 Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 254(1) of the Act, 1961 theTribunal can very well record its satisfaction on the genuineness of the activities and object of the Trust andcan very well direct registration of the Trust without remand of case to the Commissioner in case suchsatisfaction is recorded on the basis of documents and material already available on record at the stage ofexamination