UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 253 of the Act. Assessee only took a alternate remedy to again make the proceedings u/s.250 of the Act alive and filed the appeal against the order u/s.250 of the Act passed by ld.CIT(A) on 24.04.2024 before this Tribunal with a delay of 268 days. Grievance of the assessee before this Tribunal is that ld.CIT(A) ought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

275(1)(c) expired on 29.02.2022 and hence, the penalty order u/s 271E passed on 12.03.2022 is barred by limitation.” 4. The assessee has filed the cross objection with a delay of 03 days. After hearing both the sides, we condone the said delay. 5. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2016-17, he filed

SANGLI DIVISION TELECOM WORKERS COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. SANGLI,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 4 ITA.Nos.275 &276/PUN./2024 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

SANGALI DIVISION TELECOM WORKERS COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD 1, SANGLI, SANGLI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 4 ITA.Nos.275 &276/PUN./2024 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded

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

NEHA SAMYAK LODHA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

condone the delay, if any. 4. Therefore, as the order levying penalty is not put into motion to serve on the appellant within the statutory time limit of section 275, the same please be quashed. 5. Reliance is placed on the decision of Pune Bench in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. Suman Vastra Alankar (ITA No. 1048/PN/2011 dated

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Adhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd.) is a company engaged in trading of drip material and onions. It filed its return of income on 31.01.2013 declaring

SHAILESH PADMAKAR PUNTAMBEKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshalishailesh Padmakar Puntambekar Acit, Circle - 11 29, Renuka Kalarang Society Pune Vs. Patwardhan Baug Erandwane, Pune 411004 Pan –Abqpp4962M Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Mrs. J.R. Chandekar Respondent By: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)-1, Pune’S Order Dated 29.06.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-1/10559/2016-17 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee has raised the following sole substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition made