NAVALAI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 4, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1085/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

condone the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

Section 264 provide for limitation of one year for the exercise of this revisional power, whether suo motu, or at the instance of the assessee. Power is also conferred on the CIT to condone delay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TASTY BITES EATABLES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Corporate Tax Grounds: Ground 5 -Disallowance of provision of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bad debts written off of' Rs. 10,14,691 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing: 5.1 A provision

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Corporate Tax Grounds: Ground 5 -Disallowance of provision of Rs. 10,00,000/- and bad debts written off of' Rs. 10,14,691 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing: 5.1 A provision

BHARAT AGARWAL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT LONAVALA,LONAVALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD 9(5), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 264 in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that due to non-compliance before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. He further submitted that the only issue relates to the disallowance of deduction

MANISHA VILAS MUNOT,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, AHMEDNAGAR RANGE (IT),, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 264(6) provides time limit for passing of the order by the ld. CIT as one year from the end of the financial year in which such an application is made by the assessee. The application was made by the assessee on 11-04-2011. Ex consequenti, the cut-off date for passing of order

PRATAP PUNDLIKRAO PAWAR,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4.2 It is observed as per Form-35 of the assessee and pleaded before us, assessee had deducted TDS and ITA Nos.263-265/PUN/2023 Pratap Pundlikrao Pawar credited to the government account, however, he failed to file the TDS return within the stipulated time. 4.3 The issue involved in this case

PRATAP PUNDLIKRAO PAWAR,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4.2 It is observed as per Form-35 of the assessee and pleaded before us, assessee had deducted TDS and ITA Nos.263-265/PUN/2023 Pratap Pundlikrao Pawar credited to the government account, however, he failed to file the TDS return within the stipulated time. 4.3 The issue involved in this case

PRATAP PUNDLIKRAO PAWAR,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL- TDS, BANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 4.2 It is observed as per Form-35 of the assessee and pleaded before us, assessee had deducted TDS and ITA Nos.263-265/PUN/2023 Pratap Pundlikrao Pawar credited to the government account, however, he failed to file the TDS return within the stipulated time. 4.3 The issue involved in this case

MR. VIJAY BAJIRAO BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be held that the addition of Rs.22,68,500/- so made

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

condonation of delay. Coming to last issue of depreciation on leased assets, this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next plea of assessee which was raised was the aspect of WDV for the purpose of working out eligible depreciation. The Assessing Officer had re-worked the WDV of assets by considering explanation 4 to section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

condonation of delay. Coming to last issue of depreciation on leased assets, this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next plea of assessee which was raised was the aspect of WDV for the purpose of working out eligible depreciation. The Assessing Officer had re-worked the WDV of assets by considering explanation 4 to section

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

condonation of delay. Coming to last issue of depreciation on leased assets, this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next plea of assessee which was raised was the aspect of WDV for the purpose of working out eligible depreciation. The Assessing Officer had re-worked the WDV of assets by considering explanation 4 to section

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

condonation of delay. Coming to last issue of depreciation on leased assets, this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next plea of assessee which was raised was the aspect of WDV for the purpose of working out eligible depreciation. The Assessing Officer had re-worked the WDV of assets by considering explanation 4 to section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

condonation of delay. Coming to last issue of depreciation on leased assets, this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next plea of assessee which was raised was the aspect of WDV for the purpose of working out eligible depreciation. The Assessing Officer had re-worked the WDV of assets by considering explanation 4 to section

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

condonation of delay. Coming to last issue of depreciation on leased assets, this plea of assessee was also not accepted. The next plea of assessee which was raised was the aspect of WDV for the purpose of working out eligible depreciation. The Assessing Officer had re-worked the WDV of assets by considering explanation 4 to section

YOGESH HANUMANTRAO JOSHI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay in filing the 2 Yogesh Hanumantrao Joshi appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated

JEWEL HOUSING,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business as builders and filed its return of income on 15.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.29,84,930/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment