TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 ITA No.59/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in family business of agriculture. For A.Y. 2018- 19, the assessee did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of construction. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,60,670/-. The return

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

270A of the Act @ 50% of tax payable on the amount of under reported income amounting to Rs.5,72,116/- vide his order dated 15.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 223 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the said delay but without

MAHRATTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

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

2. It is submitted that the impugned asst. order was passed electronically on 22/12/2022. The assessee would like to state that it was not aware of the asst. proceedings for the above referred asst. years. It is submitted that it did not receive any notice either physically or through e-mail or by SMS for the above referred asst. year

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

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

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

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

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

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

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

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL 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

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

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

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find

SOU JAYEE MOHITE SP MANDAL,SATARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Rethare Bk,Tal Karad, Pune Dist. Satara – 415108 Maharashtra Pan : Aadts7345B Appellant Respondent

delay u/s.119(2)(b) is applicable to those cases where the return of income has not been filed or the return filed is invalid. Thus, the ld. CIT, Exemption rejected the condonation application of the appellant on the ground that the assessee’s return is a valid return and the same had already been processed

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

THE MAYANI URBAN CO OP BANK LTD,SATARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE SATARA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

section 270A of the Act wherein explanation offered by the assessee is acceptable to the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) as the case may be and therefore the penalty is not impossible. 6 10. In this regard, we find that the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay however after considering the merits

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

delay condonation application with\nHon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune.\nTechnical Mistake in submission of ITR:\nAssessee trust is a charitable trust exclusively engaged in imparting\nof recognized educational courses. Moreover, the institution is\nsubstantially financed by the Government, therefore, whole of the\nincome of the trust is exempted u/s. 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act.\nTherefore

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

section 80P(2) of Rs.1,25,13,425 in respect of interest earned on FDs with coop banks and the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing and confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by Assessee Society u/s 80P is respect of interest earned from coop banks despite compliance with relevant provisions

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

section 80P(2) of Rs.1,25,13,425 in respect of interest earned on FDs with coop banks and the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing and confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by Assessee Society u/s 80P is respect of interest earned from coop banks despite compliance with relevant provisions

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

section 80P(2) of Rs.1,25,13,425 in respect of interest earned on FDs with coop banks and the learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing and confirming the same. 2. The learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction claimed by Assessee Society u/s 80P is respect of interest earned from coop banks despite compliance with relevant provisions