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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

31,46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

31,46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

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

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

31,46,662/- an amount of Rs.2,15,38,004/- was spent on charitable activities, which accounted for 93.05% of the income, and thus, there should be no tax liability in the given year. After examining the submissions, it is observed that the return for the relevant assessment year was filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

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

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

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

31,103/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) based on the information received from INSIGHT Portal, the assessee being a non-filer of ITR. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2022 through ITBA portal. The assessee did not file his return in response to notice issued

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed the income tax return beyond the due date of filing of the return, by observing as under : “6.3 In this context, it's important

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

1) of the Act regarding delay in depositing employee’s contribution to Provident Fund account and claim of carry forward of business loss. Further, the ld. DR argued that the delay may be condoned and dispose off the appeal by confirming the order of NFAC, Delhi. Therefore, the issues covered against the assessee, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

31-12-2024 Date of 20-03-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Under

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

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

1. The Board have considered whether the requirement under section 12A(b) of filing audit report 'along with the return of income' is mandatory so as to disentitle the trust from claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 in case of omission to furnish such report in the prescribed form along with the return. 4 2. Normally, it should

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute