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

SHRI NARAYANA GURUDEVA TRUST,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520 & 1521/Pun/2024 Shri Narayan Gurudeva Trust Pakhal Road, Vadala, Nashik-422001 .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan: Aafts0349M

delay of 273 days. We have considered the reasoning in the light of corroborative documents, letters & submission etc., and found them falling within the parameters set for condonation by various judicial precedents including ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [398 ITR 250 (Bom)], ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [167 ITR 5 (SC)] The reasons

SHRI NARAYANA GURUDEVA TRUST,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1520 & 1521/Pun/2024 Shri Narayan Gurudeva Trust Pakhal Road, Vadala, Nashik-422001 .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan: Aafts0349M

delay of 273 days. We have considered the reasoning in the light of corroborative documents, letters & submission etc., and found them falling within the parameters set for condonation by various judicial precedents including ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [398 ITR 250 (Bom)], ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [167 ITR 5 (SC)] The reasons

BALASAHEB ARJUN MALAWADE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19\nand 2020-21 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

273 days which was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the\nappeal was dismissed by him. There was no delay in filing the appeal for\nAY 2020-21. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) decided both\nthe appeals on merits of the case as well. The notice(s) issued by the Ld.\nCIT(A) remained

BALASAHEB ARJUN MALAWADE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19\nand 2020-21 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

273 days which was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the\nappeal was dismissed by him. There was no delay in filing the appeal for\nAY 2020-21. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) decided both\nthe appeals on merits of the case as well. The notice(s) issued by the Ld.\nCIT(A) remained

MARATHI BANDHKAM VYA vs. AYIK ASSOCIATION,PUNEVS.ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1),PUNE, PUNE

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

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and in law, 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the interest income earned on Fixed Deposits kept with banks

BHISE INTERNATIONAL AUTO INDUSTRIES,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2913/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhise International Auto Industries, Plot No.7, Bhise Bungalow, Bhadrapad, Near Ambad Police Station Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422010 …. Pan: Aaifb8245Q Vs.

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Bhise International Auto Industries 1) The Hon. CIT (A) was not right in restricting the disallowance of alleged Hawala purchases instead of granting 100% relief: The Hon. CIT (A) in first appeal has allowed a partial

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 :

273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as under :— "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

condoned, 2. The provisions of Section 8OA (5) of the Act are directory and not mandatory and therefore deduction under Section MOP cannot be denied by making the provision section 80A (5) of the Act We relied upon decision of ITAT Delhi in case of the Fibre fill Engineers Vs. CIT (2017) 177 TTJ 556 (Del.) wherein it was held

PUNE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

273 CTR 0317. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer has grossly erred to tax the amounts collected by PMRDA in the capacity of “Special Planning Authority” in the hands of PMRDA, albeit the fact that a “Special Planning Authority” is merely a trustee of the funds which are collected

PUNE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

273 CTR 0317. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer has grossly erred to tax the amounts collected by PMRDA in the capacity of “Special Planning Authority” in the hands of PMRDA, albeit the fact that a “Special Planning Authority” is merely a trustee of the funds which are collected