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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE , PUNE vs. TIETO INDIA P LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 80 days are condoned. 3. The appellant-revenue raised three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. At the outset

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.26,873/-. The assessment was completed

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present\nappeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned.\n5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O\nwhile framing the assessment had after making necessary\nverifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had\nexceeded his jurisdiction by seeking