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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

VTP FOODS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (3), PUNE

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

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

condonation of delay of 519 days in filing the appeal since there was reasonable cause on its part for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. 2] The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,99,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account

MR. ANANDA KONDU AKHADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay in filing present appeal be kindly condoned and Appellant be allowed to present his appeal in the interest of justice. 6. It is humbly prayed that the Appellant be kindly allowed to file any additional evidences in the interest of justice, if any. 7. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds

RAMCHANDRA MANDIR MATH BALAJI,,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

condone 1300 days’ 3 Ramchandra Mandir Math Balaji delay since it is adequately explained as neither intentional nor deliberate as prayed for by the taxpayer. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 4. We note at the outset that learned CIT herein had declined the assessee’s section 12A registration by the following discussion. “The above mentioned trust has filed

M/S. MANGESH TRADERS,,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (APPEALS) -1,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 272(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) penalty of Rs.1,05,900/- on account of its failure to file the necessary information of TDS/TCS compliance, we note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that it had been proceeded ex-parte in the lower appellate proceedings as evident in the CIT(A)’s order despite the fact that

SPARSHPRATISHTHAN,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 14 days are condoned. 3. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. 4. The assessee raised four grounds amongst which

NIRMALA SHAIKSHANIK VA SAMAJIK VIKAS SANSTHA,SATARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

272 Taxman 7 (SC) Ananda Social & Educational Trust. This is indeed now coupled with the fact that the learned CIT (Exemption) concludes that the assessee had not filed the requisite details in the corresponding registration proceedings. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to set aside the instant issue of assessee’s section 12AA registration back