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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.764/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Medical Association V Dcit, Pune Branch, S Exemption Circle, Pune. 992, Dr.Nitu Mandke, Ima House, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aaati2653M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.05.2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10B and direct the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of exemption under sections 9 11 and 12 in accordance with law. ”Unquote. ITA No.764/PUN/2025 [A] 15.2 ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Trilok Singh Bhandari Charitable Trust v. Income-tax Officer 213 ITD 63 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-05-2025] held

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD, KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR vs. THE NEW MIRAJ EDUCATION SOCIETY, MIRAJ, DIST. SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

condoned. Ground No.1 & 2: Brief facts of the case are as under, For the year under consideration ie. AY 2021-22, it filed its Income Tax return on 30.12.2021, vide Ack No. 653076820301221 declaring total income of Rs. 36,460. The due date for filing of the Income, Tax return was 15.02.2022. In the ITR filed, the assessee trust

SANTH BHAGWANBABA SHIKSHAN MANDAL,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, NANDED

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforestated observation

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhary & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 554/Pun/2021 करिनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year :2016-17 Sant Bhagwanbaba Shikshan Mandal Phule Nagar, Ahmadpur, Dist. Latur. . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan :Aacts 5514 P बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent Nanded – 431 601. "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :12/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :12/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 24/03/2017 Passed U/S 250, Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Assessment Order Of Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Nanded [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 02/11/2018

section 139 and the delay in filing such report in all cases was condoned by the Board by the aforesaid blanket circular (supra). Furthermore, we are mindful to the fact that, in so far as the impugned assessment is concerned, the said condition of filing audit report has been held by Hon’ble Courts to be merely procedural and therefore

SANDHYA SURESH DAHIVELKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Sale consideration which is accepted by both Assessee and CIT (Appeal) includes consideration in respect of transfer of Land along with Building constructed on the same land (subjected capital asset) by assesse. The subjected building was constructed

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

condone the delay of 445\ndays in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeal for adjudication.\n4. Since most of the grounds raised in these two appeals are\ncommon, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of\nconsolidated order for the sake of convenience.\n5. We will first take up ITA No.1183/PUN/2023 relating

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

condone the delay of 445\ndays in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and\nadmit the appeal for adjudication.\n\n4. Since most of the grounds raised in these two appeals are\ncommon, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by way of\nconsolidated order for the sake of convenience.\n\n5. We will first take

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section, we find, no where prescribes the filing of return by any due date, therefore the findings of the CI T( A) that the assessee having not filed its ret urn within the prescribed time it had failed to comply with the requirement prescribed, is not tenable. As for the requirement of filing report of audit in the prescribed form

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE,, PUNE vs. AUDYOGIK SHIKSHAN MANDAL,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assessment Year : 2002-03

section 2 to Sec. 288 of the Act; and (ii) to furnish along with its return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form, duly signed and verified by such accountant and to set forth such particulars as may be prescribed. We find that the aforesaid requirement of law had been looked

KARAN TEJRAJ BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 , PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.428/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karan Tejraj Builders, Unit 501, Karan Tej Bonita, Cts No. 1187/16, Off Ghole Road, Pune – 411 005. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaifk1891P

section 269(SS) r.w.s 271D penalty. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that there is no loan agreement between the assesses and Mr. Bagul which could attract the forming penal provision as such a seized document indeed carries presumption of correctness u/s 292(c ) of the Act. We therefore reverse the impugned revision direction to this effect in para