KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

269 days was occurred on account of factors which are beyond the control of the appellant. 5. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR opposed the condonation of delay. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the averments made in the affidavit, we find that it is not the case of CIT-DR that the appellant had deliberately delayed

PSR SUSTAINABILITY FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

PSR SUSTAINABILITY FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

SHRI AKHIL BHARTIYA SAMARTH JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay

MUSLIM FOUNDATION FOR RENAISSANCE KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR vs. JURISDICTIONAL AO, EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of a delay in filing Form 10B for the year under consideration, without appreciating that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

condone the delay of 269 days in filing the 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

NANDKUMAR BABAN SASTE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condone the delay of 259 days in filing of the instant\nappeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for\nadjudication.\n3. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the\nassessee. In the past also, the assessee failed to appear on the\ndates fixed for hearing on 17/04/2025, 07/05/2025 &\n17/07/2025. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 Dana India Private Limited A. TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION IN `MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES’ 3. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition of Rs.22,60,76,000/- made by the AO in the ‘Manufacturing activities’. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

BAPURAO RAMKISHAN KAGNE,,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.739/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Bapural Ramkishan Kagne, The Commissioner Of Prop. M/S.Sai Electricals & Vs Income Tax, Electronics, Plot No.3, Om Sai Aurangabad. Avenue, Thakre Nagar, N-2, Cidco, Aurangabad. Pan: Akwpk 3467 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena - Cit Date Of Hearing 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Dated 26.02.2014 For The A.Y. 2008-09 Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Was Not Justified By Giving Direction To The Ao To Give Consequential Effect To The Order By Adding Back Contract Receipts Of Rs.17,93,686/- To The Total Income Of The Assessees. 2. The Learned Cit Erred In Making Giving Direction To The Ao For Further Enquiry In Respect Of Tds To Be Deducted On Dg Rent Payment, Rather The Dg Rent Payment To Single Person Does Not Exceed Rs.1,20,000/- 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit Was Not Justified In Disallowing Rs.23,269/- (Ground Is Not Forced).

section 263 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT was not justified by giving direction to the AO to give consequential effect to the order by adding back contract receipts of Rs.17,93,686/- to the total income of the assessees

KARAN TEJRAJ BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 , PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.428/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karan Tejraj Builders, Unit 501, Karan Tej Bonita, Cts No. 1187/16, Off Ghole Road, Pune – 411 005. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaifk1891P

section 269(SS) r.w.s 271D penalty. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that there is no loan agreement between the assesses and Mr. Bagul which could attract the forming penal provision as such a seized document indeed carries presumption of correctness u/s 292(c ) of the Act. We therefore reverse the impugned revision direction to this effect in para

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

269 (Raipur - Trib.) (ii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iii) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (Exemption) - [2023] 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.) III. Proposition 3: If an Application for Registration is not disposed off within 6 months, then same isdeemed to be accepted/approved, in terms of section 12AA