MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

MATSYODARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAS ANKUSHRAO TOPE JUNIOR COLLEGE, JALNA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, AURANGABAD

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

29,722/-. The case was selected for 2 scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed

SMT. MANGLA RAMNIWAS MANDHANI ABMM AWAS YOJNA FOUNDATION,JALNA vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION ), EXEMPTION

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.236/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal)

condone delay in filing an application for reference under Section 60(1) of the said Act. 7 In Insp. Asst CIT vs. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla, 133 ITR 746 a 10. Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held that Section 29

FATIMABAI HAJIMIYA KOKANI PVT TRUST.,NASHIK vs. ITO (EXEP) WARD 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2373/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh 3 Fatimabai Hajimiya Kokani Pvt. Trust Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

29,429/-. Apart from this, it was also noticed by Ld. PCIT, that the Assessing Officer has levied interest of Rs.20,644/- only instead of correct amount of interest of Rs.1,59,997/-. Accordingly, 4 there is a short levy of interest of Rs.1,39,353/-. For all these reasons , Ld. PCIT was of the view that the assessment order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return

KOLHAPUR MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

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

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

section 249(2). The discretion is to be exercised not on any arbitrary or fanciful grounds or whim or caprice of the first appellate authority, but it is to be a judicial discretion. The discretion is obviously to be exercised where "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within time is made out by the appellant (Cf. Mohd. Ashfaq

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

29-11-2012 as to why penalty under the aforestated section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days